I will be voting in favor of M50, but I am afraid that Oregonian's "libertarian" streak may dash hopes on this one.

Okay, I'm gonna say $12 million.

Their only real argument isn't even against the law itself, just where it's being put. And my impression is that most people don't actually care whether something's in the Oregon Revised Statutes or the state constitution, so they not only need to get the argument out there, they need to make large numbers of people care enough to vote against health care for kids.

That's gonna take a lot of money.

I got a mailing a while back from the No on 50 folks with a return postcard asking me if I wished to make my name public in opposing Measure 50. Perhaps those who replied were followed up on with talking points and instructions for writing letters to editors and comments on blogs.

Measure 50 is a bad measure...poorly designed, vaguely presented, and entirely discriminating. If we want to pay for health care for children, then find some way everyone can pay in. There's not a politician in the state who has the balls to simply put it before the people in the form of raised taxes for everyone. It's just easier for the majority to agree to tax a minority for purchasing something that is completely legal, if much maligned and vilified. I can hear the self-righteous hum coming from this blog....but folks it's just not an equitable tax, and it is structured wrong!

How 'bout we up the taxes on alcoholic beverages or tax designer coffee drinks, or fat laden food, start taxing folks based on their carbon footprints, tax businesses and individuals for buying and using legal but deady chemicals that leach into our environment.... all that seems fair, and lucrative. But let's not make it part of the constitution.

The fact is that M50 wouldn't tax 75 to 80% of the population, so the hope is that that percentage might be willing to vote for M50 without too much close examination? Just what percentage of the funds would actually go to health care, and how badly could this new system be bungled compared, say, to the Oregon Health Plan, and the lottery funds that were supposed to fund our schools, which always seem to be in financial crisis?

What other new tax laws could be added to the state constitution if this one sets a precedent? Shouldn't we be very reluctant to set this precedent?

And no I am not being paid by big tobacco to comment here...but Kari if you have their number, I need to pay my auto insurance, and since emergency medical bills trashed my credit I have to pay a higher rate than someone with health insurance, and I could use the extra income.

This came from Blue Oregon's Google alerts:

Measure 50: The slow burn of an illogical tax

It's Steve Buckstein of the Cascade Policy Institute doing his impression of Mr. Spock dissing Measure Fifty.

I left this comment on the The Regal Courier site - though I have not seen it up there yet:

Steve Buckstein doesn't like measure 50 because he doesn't like taxes in general, and because he doesn't like social services, including health care, either.

What he calls "illogical" about the plan are things that are not consistent with his opinions on government, economics, and society. He believes that an unfettered market will always lead to the greatest good for mankind. Most economists, and most of us who are not economists, disagree.

He fears that providing healthcare coverage for all children will be a program difficult to end. Most Oregonians think that's a fine thing. We're not very comfortable with the idea of kids running around with untreated needs that will make them less productive and less happy, and may even shorten their lives.

He believes that the Measure 50 tobacco tax would be unfair to smokers. How much tax on tobacco would be fair? Buckstein doesn't say because, according to his libertarian philosophy, no tax at all is the fair tax. He knows that most Oregonians disagree with that as well.

Steve Buckstein is entitled to his opinion on Measure 50, but readers should know that his conclusions are not based on logic, but on opinions that they likely don't share.

This came in a BlueOregon Google alert: Measure 50: The slow burn of an illogical tax.

It's Steve Buckstein of the Cascade Policy Institute doing his impression of Mr.Spock dissing Measure Fifty. I left this comment on The Regal Courier website - though I have not seen it up there yet:

Steve Buckstein doesn't like measure 50 because he doesn't like taxes in general, and because he doesn't like social services, including health care, either.

What he calls "illogical" about the plan are things that are not consistent with his opinions on government, economics, and society. He believes that an unfettered market will always lead to the greatest good for mankind. Most economists, and most of us who are not economists, disagree.

He fears that providing healthcare coverage for all children will be a program difficult to end. Most Oregonians think that's a fine thing. We're not very comfortable with the idea of kids running around with untreated needs that will make them less productive and less happy, and may even shorten their lives.

He believes that the Measure 50 tobacco tax would be unfair to smokers. How much tax on tobacco would be fair? Buckstein doesn't say because, according to his libertarian philosophy, no tax at all is the fair tax. He knows that most Oregonians disagree with that as well.

Steve Buckstein is entitled to his opinion on Measure 50, but readers should know that his conclusions are not based on logic, but on opinions that they likely don't share.

The tobacco companies didn't need to spend a dime to convince me that a cigarette tax was a stupid way to raise money for a new entitlement program. If we want to hand out money for a new entitlement program then raise the income tax or property tax.

I'm voting no on M50 for two reasons: #1 I'm not convinced that we need to hand out more money to people to pay their insurance bills, and #2, If I was convinced of that fact I wouldn't use a narrowly targeted tax on a specific item.

What will the morons in Salem think of next, a tax on bananas for special education?

We have a children's health plan that missed 40,000 kids who are qualify for the SCHIP program, but are not enrolled. Why? The state pays outreach workers to find these kids. Find them? The majority of them attend school three-fourths of the year, so that would be a logical place to find the kids and get them enrolled in the health plan. Maybe it could be simplified by the same people who enroll children in free or reduced lunch programs could enroll them in the OPH or SCHIP at the same time. The parents are required to provide financial information to the schools for the lunch program, couldn't that same information be used for health care at the same time?

Why not place a fee or spiff if you will on health care services? A buck or two for each medical appointment would not financially hurt anyone. The health care provider could collect it and remit it to the state monthly, bi-monthly or even quarterly. I would imagine there are hundreds of thousands of health care appointment every day and no one would go out of state for health care to avoid paying a buck or two.

The legislature could give low income folks a card like the Oregon Trail card, (only without the cash option) to over out of pocket medical expenses on the spot rather than making health care providers fill out forms and wait for payment. The client could choose the medical service they need, doctor, dentist, new glasses. We all need to be smarter consumers, including clients of OHP.

The system needs to be fixed before throwing any more money into it. There has to be a better way. The number one NO came from the Oregonian article attacking the Reynolds American ad, as not saying the as was paid from by R.J. Reynolds. The article went on to say that the message of the add was "technically correct" and ended with something about the revenue collected was "likely" to go to children's health care.

We can do better than this and I hope my no vote will force lawmakers to think outside the box and find better ways of addressing how the state spends health care dollars.

There was a reason the legislature chose to cap the cigar taxes, the state was losing revenue. I guess cigarette smokers don't have credit cards or they can only afford a pack at a time. Anyway, cigar smokers were buying online and not paying any taxes. There are so many online places to purchase tobacco products the state could not track all of them. I don't really know why cigarette smokers don't buy online, but I did sit through some of the hearing on the cigar tax cap. It turned out to be revenue enhancing to state coffers.

Cigarette smokers may turn to the internet with this large of a tax increase too. I think there is a point of diminishing returns but we will have to wait and see how it all plays out.

I still hope the legislature will address the spending of health care dollars.

Measure 50 is doomed. The tobacco companies would not still be spending money if their focus groups and polling numbers didn't show they have arguments that can win. And they will spend as much as it takes to get those arguments to the appropriate, targeted audiences. They will win for the same reasons they are successful in getting kids addicted to tobacco.

Kevin, you make some interesting points as to why cigarette smoker might not order online. I would venture a guess they do not buy cartons, but packs as they can afford them. Are the online cigarettes sites? I guess I will go look.

If cigar tax revenue collections are up, then I would say more cigar smokers are buying in state and not online. The tax may be capped to what they are willing to pay. If the old tax rate sent them and their cigar dollars to the internet and they are buying locally now, I guess the cap achieved some level of revenue collections the legislature does not want to give up and that is why they wrote this into the measure. Something is always better than nothing.

Kevin,

I seldom buy cigarettes, so I won't contribute much of the revenue that M50 raises. I support M50.

How's that? Feel better?

Tom Civiletti:

Steve Buckstein is entitled to his opinion on Measure 50, but readers should know that his conclusions are not based on logic, but on opinions that they likely don't share.

Bob T:

Jeez, Tom, what an odd comment.

So, according to you logic leads to progressive solutions? That's pretty elitist and arrogant.

By the way, the "micro-managed" economy you champion so much has led, to this day, to laws that in many cases squash the rights of blacks to start their own businesses and compete against others in an open market, all under the guise of "protecting the consumer", and of "preventing another depression of downturn" or some odd thing or another.

Bob Tiernan

Tom Civiletti:

I seldom buy cigarettes, so I won't contribute much of the revenue that M50 raises. I support M50.

Bob T:

You know, what percentage of cigarette tax revenues goes to health-care related programs? If it's not 100%, then this tax shouldn't be raised again until other taps are removed.

Bob Tiernan

Bob,

Don't put words into my mouth. Progressives views contain lots of opinions as do conservative and libertarian ones. Buckstein played a dishonest game, though, trying to sell his opinions as logic, because he knows that most voters do not share his opinions on economics and government.

Also, I am not in favor of all government regulation and all social programs a priori. I favor those I believe provide something worthwhile at a reasonable cost. Folks at the Cascade Policy Institute oppose regulation and taxpayer funded social programs as a matter of fundamental philosophy. I find that naive oversimplification.

Bob,

Why is it necassary that 100% of the tax goes to healthcare? I do not understand your line of thinking on this.

Kevin,

If you circulate a petition to replace the funding with a progressive source, I'll sign it. If it qualifies for the ballot, I'll vote for it. In the meantime I'll support Measure 50. I will take a regressive tax when the alternative is dead and crippled children.

Tom Civiletti:

Bob,

Why is it necassary that 100% of the tax goes to healthcare? I do not understand your line of thinking on this.

Bob T:

Because it's an easy target because of the unpopularity of the activity (smoking tobacco) and is therefore treated as a golden goose everyone wants to squeeze.

Some tobacco tax revenues has been used for road work in the past -- I don't know if it's still true. But that was passed using the emotional issue of health problems and "stick it to 'em" politics.

I just don't like that.

Bob Tiernan