Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican Candidates Tied To Bush on SCHIP (297 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is going to kill Dems (0+ / 0-)

    here. I live in a swing state that just threw out a Republican AND VOTED DOWN a tax increase on smokes.

    •  It'll Kill Dems in My State As Well... (0+ / 0-)

      ....because working-class smokers who elected Democrats DID just face a predatory $1-per-pack tax a few months ago.  Add another 60 cents per pack to that and the calculus becomes clear.  Working-class smokers (a double-digit percentage of the population) can no longer afford to vote Democrat.

      •  Hah, wonder if we live in the same state. (0+ / 0-)

        If not Dems face losing their majority

      •  it's actually a bipartisan bill (0+ / 0-)

        with 18 R senators and 45 R house members, and if it passes, even more.

        but don't let facts get in the way of your opinion that it's all about democrats nationally, which is based on the idea that there are a powerful wave of single issue voters who don't care about other issues.

        I don't think so. Show me the polling that says otherwise.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:18:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dems are the ones that will take the credit for (0+ / 0-)

          the bill and then the heat from the blow back on the tax increase. R leaning people will hate them for raising taxes, smokers will hate them for raising their taxes.

          •  R leaning people (0+ / 0-)

            are outnumbered by dems and indies 3:1. It's kinda an important concept and germane to our discussion.

            There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?

            Support 72
            Oppose 25
            Unsure 3

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 05:29:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is a Democratic Initiative.... (0+ / 0-)

          ....that MIGHT pass with some Republican support.  I assure you that Chuck Grassley and Susan Collins are gonna be nowhere to be seen with their "bipartisan support" when national Republicans campaign against the Democrats for their "$35 billion tax hike on working Americans".

          •  Also, did you see an older poll? (0+ / 0-)

            When Americans were asked whether they would be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for children's health care programs, the percent saying yes was about 78%. So the numbers go quite wildly against what you speculate.

            And remember, the Republicans have lost their cover here. Their own top guy in the Senate Appropriations Committee co-wrote this bill, and 40% of Senate Republicans and potentially 1/3 of House Republicans are supporting it. You know, there is a reason why so many of them support it (hint: take a real look at public opinion).

            •  Yet Only 22% Will Be Paying Those Higher Taxes... (0+ / 0-)

              Coincidence?  I'm betting against it.  This was a perfect opportunity to get past the "no new taxes" ethos that has suffocated progressive causes for the last 25 years, but the Democrats idiotically fed the same beast by taking the path of least resistance and foisting the cost of the SCHIP expansion on their own working-class voters.  It's as big of act of cowardice as I've ever seen from the Republicans.....and counterproductive in seemingly endless ways.

              •  Obviously, cigarette tax was not preferable (0+ / 0-)

                This should have been funded through the income tax. But this was a compromise, and we had to make that concession to get enough Republican votes to override a veto.

                Now, what is more important to you: paying for children's health care or protecting smokers from taxes? It sounds like you are opposing the former just because of the latter. True progressives would care more about the former.

                •  It's Not Either Or.... (0+ / 0-)

                  If it came down to voting for this bill, which redistributes income UP the economic ladder, versus holding out for a better bill next year, I would gladly choose the latter.

                  •  Okay, so (0+ / 0-)

                    you would oppose children's health care just because you do not like the tax system that it imposes? Even though this is the bill with the best chance of passing?

                    •  Yes.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...the expansion of SCHIP extends the program's reach into the middle class, reducing the level of urgency.  Lower-income families, which SCHIP was designed to help, will lose money because of the funding mechanism....and more likely to become mules in the tobacco black market (which has already become the fastest-growing criminal enterprise in the last few years due to cigarette taxes that are already too artificially high and poised to get even bigger with a new tax hike).  The negative consequences of becoming even more revenue-dependent upon tobacco, increasing the prevalence of an undercover smuggling economy that preys on the young and the poor, and reverse redistribution of income all add up to a SCHIP bill with more cons than pros.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site