Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: UPDATE: Cigar Tax Bill

  1. Default UPDATE: Cigar Tax Bill

    The following is an article from CNN on the status of the bill that will put many a tobaccocnist out of business. I know many people have said "don't worry" but I got to tell you I am worrying a little. In the event that the President vetoes the bill it is still possible for the bill to be reworked and submitted again, possibly still using tobacco as its funding source. What does everyone else think?


    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday night to expand the State Children's Health Insurance program, a measure President Bush has vowed to veto as a step toward universal coverage.
    The program would double -- from 4 million to 8 million -- the number of children covered.
    Eighteen Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting to expand the program from its current annual budget of $5 billion to $12 billion for the next five years.
    Four senators -- Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas and Democrats Joseph Biden of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois -- did not vote.
    The reauthorization bill "fails to focus on poor children, and instead creates a new entitlement program for higher-income households," said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino in a written statement.
    "The president will veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes at the expense of poor families."
    With the current program scheduled to expire Saturday, the White House encouraged Congress to send the president a continuing resolution extending the program.
    "We should take this time to arrive at a more rational, bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that focuses on children in poor families who don't currently have insurance, rather than raising taxes to cover people who already have private insurance," Perino added.
    Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was among those Republicans who split from the president. "It's very difficult for me to be against a man I care so much for," he told his colleagues on the Senate floor prior to the vote. "It's unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue."Though 67 votes in the 100-person chamber would suffice to overturn a veto, the House version, which was approved Tuesday, fell short of the two-thirds majority needed.
    Bush and many Republicans contend the program's original intent would be changed under the current bill. The program is supposed to give parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance coverage for their children. The concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage their children already have in order to get cheaper coverage under the bill.
    Though Bush has been clear about his veto plans, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, held out hope he would have a change of heart.
    "It is my fervent hope that the president will put away his veto pen so that he can get on with the business of adequately funding programs that contribute, yes, contribute, to a safe and prosperous United States of America," he said.
    Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, said illegal aliens would use "glaring loopholes" in the legislation to enroll in it.
    But Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, disagreed.
    "I bristle when there are colleagues who come to this floor and still bring up the red herring of immigrant children being covered who shouldn't have the right," he said. "Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for regular Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, and this bill maintains that prohibition."
    "Every child deserves health care," said Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. "More than 9 million do not have access to quality, affordable health care. That is a moral crisis and it should be impelling us to act."
    Though children in a family of four making 250 percent of the poverty level -- or up to $52,000 per year -- would be eligible under the bill, that kind of salary "doesn't go very far in New York," she said.
    "If the president vetoes this bill, he will be vetoing health care for almost 4 million children, and he will be putting ideology -- not children -- first," she added.
    Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican from the tobacco-growing state of Kentucky, cited the fact that the bill would get its funds from an increase in tobacco taxes as unfair.
    "It redistributes income from low-income smokers to states with the highest per-capita incomes," he said. "It could be called Robin Hood in reverse."
    Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, was also unimpressed. "This is a perfect example of the type of partisan politics that goes on in Washington all the time," he told CNN. "It's not about trying to take care of the children; it's about how can we get a political advantage."
    He added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"
    He credited his colleagues in the House for taking a stand against the bill. "Thank goodness they're going to do the right thing for the children and for fiscal responsibility. They're going to sustain the president's veto, and then hopefully we can sit down rationally and work out an agreement to preserve this program.
    Last edited by koolhandk; 09-28-2007 at 10:01 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Columbus/Canton, OH (home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame!!!)
    Posts
    241

    Default

    definately not good for us. if this goes through looks like we're gonna need to pick up a new habit.


    20,000% is an absolutely ridiculous spike in tax rates. never in the history of the U.S. has there been a raise so high.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Havana, Cuba
    Posts
    2,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey-OH View Post
    definately not good for us. if this goes through looks like we're gonna need to pick up a new habit.


    20,000% is an absolutely ridiculous spike in tax rates. never in the history of the U.S. has there been a raise so high.
    Welcome to Canada. I just paid 30 bucks for a GM last night.
    {*insert snide remark here*}
    Trader Rating: +2112


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    i w s o m (Aotearoa)
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drew_goring View Post
    Welcome to Canada. I just paid 30 bucks for a GM last night.
    Yea, but you did say it was really good. Better one good smoke for 30 vs a bundle of crap.
    "Science is a candle in the dark" - some science guy



    MMmmm... scotch. Another love.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Havana, Cuba
    Posts
    2,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rsanz View Post
    Yea, but you did say it was really good. Better one good smoke for 30 vs a bundle of crap.
    True...even at 30 bucks it was still worth it. Although it would be nicer at 10-15/pop.

    But I am sure you know all too well what crazy tobacco taxes feel like.
    {*insert snide remark here*}
    Trader Rating: +2112


  6. #6

    Default

    I'm not too worried. 45 Democrats in the House joined the majority of Republicans to vote against it, so they don't have the 2/3 majority in the House. The Senate, they do have 2/3 but not in the House. So I'm not worried yet.
    There's only two kinds of cigars, the kind you like and the kind you don't.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cigar no baka View Post
    I'm not too worried. 45 Democrats in the House joined the majority of Republicans to vote against it, so they don't have the 2/3 majority in the House. The Senate, they do have 2/3 but not in the House. So I'm not worried yet.
    But it could be reconfigured to please those who oppose, while still relying on a hefty tobacco tax. That is what I am really worried about...this problem isn't just going to disappear with a veto or by being voted down.

  8. #8

    Default

    You could vote for Hillary. I hear Bill is a cigar lover

    Apologies ahead of time for offending, but damn it had to be said!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    P.O. Box 14403 Tallahassee, FL 32317
    Posts
    1,906
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/...ldren_s_health

    Its official, Bush vetoed the bill!

    Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. -- Carl Sagan

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Columbus/Canton, OH (home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame!!!)
    Posts
    241

    Default

    thank god. now i'll be able to smoke without any worries. this calls for a celebration.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Beaufort, SC
    Posts
    2,045
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey-OH View Post
    thank god. now i'll be able to smoke without any worries. this calls for a celebration.

    Yeah.... I think I'll smoke a cigar tonight

    oh yeah... I was going to do that anyway!
    "We're at NOW now... everything that's hapening now... is happening NOW!"

    ~ Col. Sanders ~


    "I guess all we need to do now is give a shit what you think. I'll work on that."

    ~ ashauler ~

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Havana, Cuba
    Posts
    2,339

    Default

    Sounds like good news.
    {*insert snide remark here*}
    Trader Rating: +2112


  13. #13

    Default

    Well, the Senate has the votes to override a veto. The House is about two dozen votes shy of getting a 2/3 majority, but the Democrats are working hard on 15 Republicans to get them to switch their votes. So we are not out of the woods yet, the idiots in the Legislature could still override the veto.
    There's only two kinds of cigars, the kind you like and the kind you don't.

  14. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cigar no baka View Post
    Well, the Senate has the votes to override a veto. The House is about two dozen votes shy of getting a 2/3 majority, but the Democrats are working hard on 15 Republicans to get them to switch their votes. So we are not out of the woods yet, the idiots in the Legislature could still override the veto.
    I agree.

  15. Default

    As stated before, this is probably going to get reworked and put on the table again, and they will still probably use a tobacco tax to fund it. I commend all of you who wrote to your senators to vote against this, but we must remain vigilant and be prepared to do it again when the time comes.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    2,067

    Default

    I think it's important that we all talk about this bill to those who may not smoke or read these forums. The opposition is already starting the spin that Bush vetoed "the bill" and the media is making it sound as if he cut the funding totally. The important points are that the existing funding has not been cut, it has just not been expanded, and families who do not qualify for medicare but can't afford private health insurance are still covered. Bush vetoed the bill to prevent the expansion of yet another entitlement program and prevent yet another tax increase. It stopped folks who can afford private health insurance from dropping their own and being covered by the government. If passed, this would have allowed a family of 4 making upwards to $80K/year to obtain federal health care benefits paid for by the taxpayers, and "children" upwards to the age of 25 would have been covered by the government.

    We need to talk this up in a way that non-smokers can understand.

  17. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby07 View Post
    I think it's important that we all talk about this bill to those who may not smoke or read these forums. The opposition is already starting the spin that Bush vetoed "the bill" and the media is making it sound as if he cut the funding totally. The important points are that the existing funding has not been cut, it has just not been expanded, and families who do not qualify for medicare but can't afford private health insurance are still covered. Bush vetoed the bill to prevent the expansion of yet another entitlement program and prevent yet another tax increase. It stopped folks who can afford private health insurance from dropping their own and being covered by the government. If passed, this would have allowed a family of 4 making upwards to $80K/year to obtain federal health care benefits paid for by the taxpayers, and "children" upwards to the age of 25 would have been covered by the government.

    We need to talk this up in a way that non-smokers can understand.
    Well stated Shelby07.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    2,067

    Default

    Here's an interesting article by George Will from Newsweek

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047607...sweek/page/0//

    It's pretty interesting to note that the bill would have required 22,000,000 new smokers to keep it funded. And his point that care for the middle class would be put mostly on the shoulders of lower income families is revealing, too.

  19. #19

    Default

    McCain is backing the veto on it as unrealistic for funding with current plan.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby07 View Post
    I think it's important that we all talk about this bill to those who may not smoke or read these forums. The opposition is already starting the spin that Bush vetoed "the bill" and the media is making it sound as if he cut the funding totally. The important points are that the existing funding has not been cut, it has just not been expanded, and families who do not qualify for medicare but can't afford private health insurance are still covered. Bush vetoed the bill to prevent the expansion of yet another entitlement program and prevent yet another tax increase. It stopped folks who can afford private health insurance from dropping their own and being covered by the government. If passed, this would have allowed a family of 4 making upwards to $80K/year to obtain federal health care benefits paid for by the taxpayers, and "children" upwards to the age of 25 would have been covered by the government.

    We need to talk this up in a way that non-smokers can understand.
    Excellent points Mark, we all need to spread the word that this is another tax boondoggle.
    There's only two kinds of cigars, the kind you like and the kind you don't.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •