Nope, he'd never get involved in issues in the legislature for self-serving political purposes. (And yep, he's a huge fan of government negotiating lower drug prices...always has been.) Pfff.

<u>Associated Press</u>, July 6, 2001 Sen. Gordon Smith urges defeat of Kitzhaber's drug formulary fight The top Oregon House Republican says U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith this week urged lawmakers to reject Gov. John Kitzhaber's bill to reduce Oregon Health Plan prescription drug costs, the main unresolved issue that's blocking adjournment of the 2001 Legislature. The House and Senate met into the early morning hours Friday but quit without coming to an agreement on the drug plan. Lawmakers planned to return to work Friday afternoon in hopes of bringing the 2001 session to a close. House Speaker Mark Simmons said Thursday that Smith spoke with the House Republican office in Salem on Tuesday and weighed in against the Democratic governor's "drug formulary" plan.

it turns out that a US Senator actually can take positions on state legislation.

It's not the first time...

Gordon Smith was front and center in campaign literature endorsing Measure 36 - he eagerly threw his vocal, public support behind that successful STATE effort to cut gay and lesbian Oregonians off from basic constitutional rights.

However, as a second class citizen and parent to three healthy kids in Blue Oregon (home to many who apparently share the Senator's evidence-free religious prejudice on that state issue), thank you for putting him and the press on notice now..!

The refusal to comment on state legislation is only because politics in Oregon is such a sorry sport.

However, since you thought you could make cheap political hay on this issue, what's infinitely worse about this shameful announcement is how it shows what low lives and betrayers of true Democratic values Kulongoski and the "kill the parents to pay for health care for their kids" tobacco-tax funded "health-care" plan supporters are. Earlier, we saw why Barbara Roberts was such an utter failure as a leader when she endorsed this abomination.

Maybe what we need to do is to get the surviving children of parents who died of lung cancer and other tobacco-related diseases to speak out publicly whether this plan is a good idea. Put a few younger kids with respiratory diseases themselves right out front to talk about how grateful they would be to have insurance under this plan, even if it means their family and friends have to smoke up to pay for it. And since the medical costs are always going up, maybe the kids can make a plea to their family members and friends to smoke an extra pack a week for them to cover the increases. Of course, they should not less us forget that we are in this mess because of the subhuman Republican scum that willfully created the health care mess this country is in because they are so selfish and opposed to taxes that they don't care who they hurt or how bad.

A pox on both your houses.

If you are legislator reading this, and particularly if you are a Democratic legislator, and you have a principled bone in your body, you'll vote against this truly morally bankrupt plan. And you'll make it known loud and clear that's why you voted against it by developing and funding a health care plan for all citizens we can actually point to with pride, rather than have to explain with shame the kind of low-class people and "leaders" we obviously would have in this state if you were to pass this plan.

Jenni - buy a clue.

This plan is about political cowardice and sending several incredibly bad social messages because far too many Oregonians are selfish, stupid, and don't care to actually build a credible health care plan. Spare me your credulous viewpoint that this isn't about encouraging people to smoke. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't being offered or argued as an anti-smoking initiative, it is being offered as a (dishonorable) plan to fund health care for children. If you don't get the difference you clearly are easily duped. If instead, you choose to spin the supposed side effect of reducing smoking, your dishonesty is a loathsome as that of any neo-con right-winger.

And don't even presume to indirectly lecture me about smokers and health effects. You have no idea of the health effects of smoking with which I have experience. If you actually were a serious thinker, you might consider if and how it would be that only people with a lot of knowledge about the health effects of smoking would have the insight why this is such an immoral plan, definitely not in keeping with true progressive or liberal Democratic values.

"you do know that the cost estimates of the Healthy Kids plan already include the effect of some people smoking less as a result of the higher taxes."

I know this is a political tactic that came to be touted by the proponents, including trotting out pathetic Barabara Roberts, when the dishonesty of this plan came under fire for this amongst other reasons. Of course there is no way to estimate those costs and the plan at bottom line depends on people smoking.

If anything, the low moral character of the proponents is highlighted by how they came to play politics in this way.

How amusing! Oregon got a big ol' wad of cash from the evil tobacco companies as a result of the settlement, and they peed it away. Now they want to increase taxes on the product at the same time that they want to decrease the number of folks using the product. So what do they really want? Do they want more people hooked on the evil weed? If so, they should keep taxation to a minimum - because that will ultimately yield much more money to the state.

Do they want people to quit smoking? Then tax the hell out of the product. Of course, that means that revenue will quickly fall off, and so they'll have to come up with some other way to raise money to "save the children". I know! How about a 125% tax on each bottle of water sold in the state?

If the tobacco companies don't like it - don't sell your product here. They act like they have some kind of ENTITLEMENT to sell their useless, harmful product, and not pay anywhere close to the costs that smokers force all Oregonians to incur.

Too damn bad, Big Tobacco. If you don't like it, sell your crappy, deadly product elsewhere.

Jenni, here's something that apparently will surprise you and others who comment here: The last thing I care about is being labelled a troll by the weasly gaggle of fake "progressives" and betrayers of true Democratic party values supporting this disgusting proposal. True Democrats don't build opportunity for some that depends solely on tearing down the health and welfare of those down the economic ladder.

With regard to the rest of your comment. Most of the supporters including you are the people running from the facts. Without offering hard numbers, derived from explicitly stated assumptions legitimately open to scrutiny and criticism, all of the hand-waving arguments that "we'd actually have more money, blah, blah" that Barbara Roberts and the ALA have dishonestly trotted out in what has to be the most pathetic aspect of this whole episode are nothing more than a dishonest attempt to distract from the one fact at the core of this legislation: This plan has been presented by proponents, starting with the Governor's platform and the Democratic legislative platforms this last election, as an oh-so-nifty way to fund health care that cynically depends on others destroying their health.

The proof of this is irrefutable. If no one smoked, there would be no taxes. Furthemore, the money we supposedly "saved" from people not smoking is neither credibly quantifiable, nor a line item in the budget that would be shifted elsewhere to pay for health care. Just because supporters like you want to ignore these facts because they expose your arguments as being rooted in selfish interests rather than facts doesn't make the facts any less true. It's high time we started speaking out in this way against the lame brains on our side. Our failure to do so in recent times is perhaps the biggest reason we have not earned the right to govern. In this regard, it should not go unremarked that earlier this week that one misguided Oregon jury and the Oregonians who agree with them, and I'll bet that includes a lot of folks here, were also soundly rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court on firm legal grounds rooted in important principles of our country. For those of you who just can't accept it, that decision was not split on ideological lines: Thomas, Ginsberg, Scalia, and Stevens were the minority who voted to affirm.

So don't presume to condescendingly lecture me. It's actually quite rich that we are increasingly seeing people who have gotten used to throwing the label "troll" to dismiss right-wingers, who invariably don't have substantive arguments, now trying to defend a vacuous position by reflexively throwing that label at liberals defending liberal values because they are more forceful arguers and clearer thinkers. That speaks volumes about the hollowness of supposed liberal/progressive blogosphere.

I could care less about the tax rate on cigarettes since I have never purchased a pack in my life. I do disapprove of using a collection of user fees and sin taxes to pay for programs that should be supported by the general fund. Once a program is identified as worthy of being enacted, and a children's medical program certainly qualifies, then the general fund should pay for it. Raise the income tax!

I would have the same problem raising tax on beer to support state parks, or the tax on gambling to support food assistance for families. These are CORE PROGRAMS and deserve CORE FUNDING.

Senator Smith's recent stint of aisle crossing has me wondering if he'll be pulling a surprise "Westland" sometime soon. If so, I wonder if the D's will be able to accept him.

Just a thought.

I think the tax increase is a good idea. If by some miracle it wipes out smoking, and thus the tax, in Oregon, all the better. This plan is not a substitute to creating affordable health care for all...it's another piece of the current puzzle to help cover funding until we can get the other plan setup and legalized. It's frustrating but that's the way it is.

Jenni, sounds like you and I have similar experiences. My whole family smoked--literally everyone, including cousins starting at the age of 10--except me. I've got asthma and allergies that I attribute to second hand smoke. My folks didn't quit regardless of the tax level (they are in Oklahoma)--until mom lost a lung to cancer. Since kids have no say in whether or not they breathe in second-hand smoke and since many ailments of childhood can be traced to second hand smoke, it seems appropriate that a tax on cigarettes help pay for kids health. For the record, I also think alcohol taxes should go to a fund to help offset the medical/funeral costs of drunk driving victims.

It's certainly an interesting subject to discuss. Thanks, Kari, for putting it out there.

JPQ -- I can't believe you get blasted like you do. You are by far the most articulate blogger on this thread and make excellent and factual points. The true colors of those that blast you shine through bright and clear.

Come on people, don't behind the "troll" label!! I see it done way too often.

As for raising the income tax... typical thoughtless idea from have-not's. Why don't we take a page from the state to the north of us and do away with an income tax altogether and put in place a sales tax? WA seems to be doing much better than OR these past few years. Maybe we could learn something.

Big deal... lots of people us an alias. It's the content of the post not the alias that measures the character of the blogger. How'd you like that one? Made it up all by myself.

"Senator Smith to Vote No: Spending Bill Lacks County Payment Extension"

Welfare as we liberals have always known it. Now about the welfare cowboys overgrazing BLM land...

"And JQP -- you'll quickly be labeled a troll and ignored unless you stop the insults and diminishing others' intelligence and stick with the facts of the situation."

I for one have far less a problem with “trolls” who take a well thought out position that generates discussion than I do with the Democrat Party lapdancers (thanks S. Duin) who post here masquerading as progressives.

Their blind acceptance of every morally bankrupt proposal party higher-ups put forth sucks the intelligence right out of this website.

<h2>The life and intelligence of this website were sucked out long ago Buckman. It's a blog. What else would you expect from a blog other than a bunch of get-a-lifers hiding behind a keyboard typing out nonsense?</h2>