Sal couldn't be more wrong about one thing: "Save Our Kids by Smoking" is not a policy a principled, liberal Democrat with can defend, nor is it a sane health care policy. (The tax on auto insurance to fund state police is not quite on point with "Help Fight Crime" either, but no use getting into that.)

I think Sal is right about the billion dollar (+) surplus. With those extra dollars, if the legislature can't produce a sensible budget without creating new taxes, it will deserve the "spending like drunken sailors" reputation it will get.

I disagree with Sal about the new troopers. What is the problem this increase is trying to solve? Normally, major increases in any kind of spending require some kind of analysis showing the need. What is the need here? Are Oregon crime statistics significantly different from any other state? Do the state troopers generally exercise jurisdiction over that type of crime so that increasing their numbers would have any effect? There has simply been no intelligent effort to try to justify the trooper increase. This issue was created during the governorship campaign when Kulongoski and Saxon tried to out law-and-order each other on trooper increases. Neither articulated any valid reason for an increase. It was mere pandering by both of them. This whole issue deserves the kind of quiet burial blustery campaign promises usually get.

I have to disagree with Mr Maurer a bit:

Economics is pretty simple. If you tax something you get less of it.

Just because you tax something, doesn't mean that less people will buy it. There are two types of goods: elastic goods and inelastic goods. Elastic goods are price sensitive. That is to say that if the price increases, people will purchase less. These are items like ketchup, CDs, magazines, etc.
Inelastic goods are goods that are not price sensitive. People will tend to buy them no matter the price. Items like tobacco, alcohol, medicine, etc.
The government likes to tax inelastic goods for a couple of reasons. One of the main reasons is that consumers will still purchase the goods. Governments also like to tax inelastic goods because a greater portion of the tax burden is shifted to the consumer. Finally, the government likes to tax inelastic goods because of the efficiency in collecting the tax as opposed to elastic goods; Taxes on inelastic goods offer less waste.

Now I understand the thinking: if cigarettes cost more, kids will buy less. But like I just presented, the price doesn't matter. Mr Maurer insinuates that minorities cannot afford cigarettes because all minorities are poor; therefore, this is a 'white' disease. But if tobacco is a big problem with middle to upper class kids, then raising the price won't do much. I'm sure there are legions of teenagers who are willing to use their allowances to pay $10.00 a pack...or they will continue to take them from their parents who will continue to purchase them.

As long as tobacco is around, kids are going to use it. That's not why we should tax it. We should tax cigarettes because it is a great idea from an economic point of view.

To determine the Republican strategy, all you have to do is look at the organizations that have taken over the Oregon Republican Party. They are not Oregon organizations at all. Oh, you mean like all of those out of state enviro groups that were the 2nd largest contributor group to the anti-M37 campaign? (You know right after the big money put up by ONE RICH VINEYARD OWNER, presumable to keep us city riff-raff out of his private neighborhood.)

Thanks JK

Steve and Sal are now arguing about something quite apart from what was challenged about Sal's original glib remark. A lot of Democrats, myself included, have little problem with considering tobacco policy on it's own merits as they seem to be trying to fall back and argue. However, for some of us it is more important to confine ourselves to public policy merits of the specific bill on the table.

The economic effects, particularly with regard to youth, that Maurer alleges are not nearly on point as proponents of this bill hope people believe. I think everyone who was young once can remember that the tradeoffs young people make in their spending choices are influenced heavily by the role models they choose. Which is why we get press releases like this from experts (who I trust more than the superficial analyses and statements by interest groups including the ALA):

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04032007.html

Tax increases have at times correlated with reductions in tobacco consumption, but the evidence they are the cause, rather than other efforts aimed at changing social mores around smoking of those reductions is much harder to come by. This is one those cases that frequently come up in politics where a desired policy is being sold on the strength that it just seems to make sense, but the evidence demonstrates the reality is far more complicated.

The claims Maurer makes about "nicotine addiction is overwhelmingly a white disease" is simplistic to the point that it becomes bizarre when asserted in this didactic way. Perhaps in some particularly interpretation of that statement, such as in terms of absolute numbers or as a percentage of the smoking population, some technical argument along these lines can be made, but in terms of percentages of specific populuations, this sweeping statement is not true. Folks can peruse the CDC information for themselves:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/MMWR/2006/mm5547_intro.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/MMWR/2006/mm5547_highlights.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/MMWR/2004/mmwr5303a3_intro.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/MMWR/2004/mmwr5303a3_highlights.htm

There is only one proper answer to someone like Sal: Most Democrats I know and trust find the message "Save Our Kids By Smoking" of this bill to be repugnant public policy on its face and to its core. In the last month or so, proponents and the governor seem to have been stung by the feedback along these lines they have received. They have started to resort to various alternate specific messages and strategies, including the particular one you throw out about " recouping some of the health care costs associated with smoking". If one were to take that message at it's face value, the best answer probably would be that it seems unlikely that most of the kids this plan is providing insurance for are smokers who would be hit by the tax.

Being fair, the use of the word "associated" is obviously meant to open up a little semantic wiggle room for debate. If you are talking about the purported reductions across the system due to reductions in tobacco consumption that this tax might bring about, you need to speak to the earlier point about proving that any particular previous tax increases were actually causative, rather than merely correlative, with any particular, associated, decrease in smoking. You also need to speak, with proof, to the separate issue of whether any further increases would actually be associated with further decreases in smoking rates (if taxes were $10/pack, doubling it to $20/pack likely would have little impact). Finally, you need to at least make dismissive mention of how many of the disease and chronic health problems every sane person accepts as being linked to smoking, including lung cancer, seem to be also increasing in non-smokers, probably for evironmental reasons, so that we properly and accurately estimate the costs of those problems that we can recover from tax increase-based strategies for reducing smoking being sold by trading on supposedly providing health-care for children. This is not the evidence-based strategy the governor, our Democratic leaders, or anti-smoking proponents took when they seized on this scheme, each for their own purposes.

Is this really about a debate about public health policy? Or about winning politically, and particularly with policies that are politically popular with, and in the self-interest of a segment of Oregonians? That latter goal has much more to do with independent question of whether these particularly policies are in the spirit of liberal or progressive Democrat values.

"'Not Easy to Defend' has chosen an appropriate nickname.

It's just not easy to defend the assertion that the state should not seek to recoup some of the health care costs associated with smoking."

Not particularly skilled Sal, since that is not even close to the assertion that was made. Clearly you feel that making up sweeping statements and not fairly representing the claims of others, rather than honestly responding to the point that you need to quantify your claims to prove you even have a point, is the kind of semantic game playing that works here. I can't argue with that since I don't know what readers actually think about the arguments. Personally, I'd like to give them more credit than that, so all I can do is recount:

You original thesis was that "Save Our Children By Smoking" was good public health policy.

Then, when that specific policy of providing health care for children through the dubious, hypocritical leadership example of funding it through tobacco use was exposed for the bad policy it is, your thesis became that this tax would be about "recouping some of the health care costs".

When it was noted that such claims, without numbers, really are hollow propagandizing, your thesis changed again. Now it is an even more vague, propagandistic argument, about how every dollar we don't spend on one group of people is a dollar we can spend somewhere else. Leaving aside the previous point that we don't know the real amount of money that you allege would be available, how many children this mystical amount of money would provide health care for, and that there is no line item in the budget that can be reprogrammed to lend budgetary meaning to your rhetorical claims, the obvious proof your argument as you make it here is just so much propagandizing, rather than the basis for meaningful policy (especially a policy for providing health care for chlidren), is the set of paradoxical facts:

1) If people stop smoking we wouldn't have the real dollars to spend, and certainly we wouldn't have any real dollars to re-program in the way you imply for any purpose, much less for health care for children.

2) If people keep smoking, the taxes being collected that could deal with the health care problems of smokers, and that for political reasons are limited to an amount just sufficient to provide health care for children, are re-progreammed for that purpose, leaving an equal gap in funding for health care for smokers.

The governor and some (but thankfully not all) of our Democratic legislators publicly ran on providing health care for children. Not the sleight of hand of digging one hole in health care funding to fill another. In his venal quest for votes, the governor was evasive when and how he actually talked about cigarette taxes to Democrats and non-Democrats who saw through the hypocrisy of this plan. The governor's propaganda played well to a certain crowd, apparently Sal among them, who show little concern, interest, or knowledge about the real facts and figures of the funding crisis in health care we face in this state. Folks who, by their own words and disgustingly judgmental anti-smoking rhetoric, show very little primary concern about providing health care for children or any other group of people, least of all smokers. At the bottom line, our governor and the Democratic leaders shamelessly betrayed liberal/progressive Democratic values with this intentionally cynical approach to health care policy.

I think what really is not lost on a lot of readers is first, that comments like anyone how refers to "liberal or progressive Democrat values" could be a typo, particularly since Democratic was used just two sentences earlier. Unlike a lot of childish folks like Sal, most of the registered Democrats I know find the whole debate over Democrat/Democratic to be utterly ignorable (particularly since the particular use in the quoted sentence is grammatically correct.) That Sal seems to fix on that as the basis of a childish defense against substantive refutations of his argument is just sad.

I wager what also is not lost on a lot of Democrats, Republicans, and non-affiliated voters alike, many of whom have fond feelings for the smokers in their families, are the arrogant, elitist, and self-centered attitudes of folks like Sal who demean and demonize smokers in the way they talk about who is a burden on the health care system and who isn't, and in the way they seized on this slimy political tactic of piggy-backing their agenda on the geniune problem we all recognize we need to solve, and solve now, of providing health care for children who aren't getting adequate health care now.

This terribly misguided strategy the governor and our Democratic legislative leadership foolishly chose to pursue for political purposes is anything but in the best tradition of liberal and progressive Democratic values. They were conned by several interests groups, and some selfish, non-representative grass/netroots actors, who certainly have legitimate public policy concerns, but who should have had the morality and decency of character to bring those concerns forward on their own merits. From what I can see, some of our Democratic legislators, but seemingly not our governor, have come to realize that.

Steve - Price does matter if you raise it high enough. I'm sure there are about 0.01 percent of smokers who would spend their rent money on cigarettes, but that's the exception to the rule. Price matters on some goods and it doesn't matter on others. Why else would some folks spend hundreds of dollars per dose for some pharmaceuticals? Drugs are very inelastic because if you don't have them, you could die. Why else would people spend so much on tobacco? We've seen the price of tobacco continue to rise without seeing the tobacco company profits decline. And why else would people spend hundreds of dollars on gifts for the Christmas rush? I would say that new products released before Christmas (ie: tickle me elmo, xBox 360, PS3) have an inelastic demand that resembles a vertical line. You wouldn't see them on eBay for $2,000 a piece if they didn't, would you? The elasticity of demand of a good influences how many are purchased. How can it not?

And it's unfair to compare something like oil to tobacco. There are plenty of substitutes for oil (taking public transit, carpooling, cycling, walking) but there are not many alternatives to smoking a cigarette. Most people who smoke would frown at the idea of chewing tobacco or using snuff...so where's the comparison? Hopefully, I'm not some old social scientist who's out of the loop...

Kari - I am unaware of any studies that say kids are any different, but it certainly seems like a logical conclusion; nicotine works it's way into life as a habit and it remains as an addiction. Kids don't have the kind of experience necessary for this to happen.

"Numerous studies have shown substantial drops in tobacco consumption among kids when tobacco tax goes up."

Could you cite some of those "numerous" studies (not secondary references to them) so folks can read them for themselves. I have frequently heard folks like the ALA make such claims, but I have yet to find any mention of the specific studies that support a claim as sweeping as yours.

The devil is in the specifics, because public policy and the real-world consequences frequently are not what proponents of this or that policy in their theorizing argue.

I think the contention that smoking is relatively inelastic with regard to tax-related costs does comport with the literature one can find, such as the earlier cited Harvard study that highlights the much more important effect of role models and social norms. That, of course, is what makes most of Sal's argument so problematic and so contrary to the inclusive message of the Democratic party I always knew and loved.

The real world fact is that the proponents themselves are now arguing this specific proposal is about the political expediency of collecting funding from one politically unpopular group that has unmet health care needs to fund health care for another, more politically popular group, rather than providing health care for children as they originally argued, or about developing a solution that provides health care for both equally deserving groups, regardless of their respective political popularity. In this way, the proponents rather explicitly demean and devalue one group of people relative to another. Proponents of this rather shameless strategy work directly counter to establishing the core moral imperative that everyone has an inalienable right to health care needed to bring about wide support for successful health care reform. In addition, there is legitimate reason to fear that leaders who are venal enough to do this are likely to consider it enough for now, and not step up over the next several years to do the hard political work of meaningful health care reform.

Sorry, I want to see my Democratic leaders abandon this badly misguided political tactic as the necessary first step towards meaningful health care reform which will not create more problems than it solves. People like Sal and other proponents of this particular bill, and the Democratic Party leadership, should have the courage to ask people like me to leave the Democratic Party if they don't believe that is what an inclusive Democratic Party is all about. In that way we can all know the reality of what our party stands for now, compared to what it used to stand for. My hope and guess is that if presented with those terms, more people would choose to leave the Party out of faithfulness to what it used to stand for that to stay in support of what this suggests it would have come to stand for.

People like Sal and other proponents of this particular bill, and the Democratic Party leadership, should have the courage to ask people like me to leave the Democratic Party if they don't believe that is what an inclusive Democratic Party is all about.

We can't ask you to leave if you don't reveal your name...

"'You original thesis was that 'Save Our Children By Smoking''

Kari,

Sorry for not recognizing this person as a troll much earlier."

Yes, in fairness I should have written:

"Sal's original thesis 'Save Our Children' which, by the rest of his words focusing on using this propagandistic line to sell this particular plan, unarguably means 'Save Our Children By Smoking'". I can see that such abbreviated summaries, for the sake of moving the argument along, obviously are not welcome here, correct as they may be.

It is interesting the way some folks throw out the word "troll" so easily as a defense when they are challenged. Not that it matters, or that wikipedia is authoritative, but the definition of "troll" there seems about in line with what one counters in other uses:

Troll

A commenter whose sole purpose is to attack the views expressed on a blog and incite a flamewar, for example, a liberal going to a conservative blog, or vice versa. The word trolling means literally 'to fish', ie. when the troll fishes for a clashback from the blog writer and/or pro commenters. Many trolls will leave their remarks on multiple posts and continue to visit the blog, sparking spirited debate amongst the blog's regular readers. Trolls' verbosity can range from eloquent to crass, although most trolls probably fall into the latter category. Originally, trolling only meant the custom where someone was commenting just to get a flamewar going, by using exaggarated points of view not held by themselves.

What is striking is how the usage on this thread, attacking someone who serially defends core "Blue" principles on "BlueOregon" against positions and serial responses on the basis that, when fairly presented, those positions and serial responses are anything but "Blue", isn't at all what the definition talks about. Or in these times has "Blue", apparently like "Democrat/Democratic", "liberal", and "progressive" now come to mean something quite different in our corner of the country than it used to mean, and still means elsewhere?

Apropos of that:

"We can't ask you to leave if you don't reveal your name..."

I think all that is required is some affirmative assertion of what "Russell" (who is not Russell Sadler) and others claim to be the values and principles in this place and time of the Democratic Party, and the supposed liberal or progressive wing of the Party, along with a message if one doesn't agree, they should leave. That's been the point here hasn't it, an argument over whether the significant unspoken premisses of this bill comport with what the Democratic Party stands for or not? I have affirmatively, and unapologetically, stated why I contend they don't, and, what's more, what I think the Party does stand for when it comes to health care reform. Maybe you can get the governor, or the SOS, or the majority leader in either chamber, all of who have endorsed this particular bill at one time, to come forward and make an equivalent statement in defense of this bill and the Party?

Sal,

In response to my question: What is the problem this trooper increase is trying to solve?

You say: "This is not about "out law and ordering" anyone. Oregon currently has fewer state police today than we had in the 1970's, despite the fact that the population has nearly doubled. The lack of 24x7 patrols and the lack of adequate backup for state police are both serious public safety issues in Oregon."

With respect to the fact that there are fewer troopers now than in the past, the proper response is: So What? Show me the statistics that show that Oregon has somehow suffered from some kind of crime wave or highway accident epidemic in comparison to other states because of this. Do state troopers really do much to combat local crime? Isn't their primary jurisdiction highways and state property? Is there some identifiable or quantifiable problem there that needs addressing?

I still don't think you have come up with justification for the quantum jump in the number of state troopers. The burden of proof is always on the proponents. Your vague fear about public safety doesn't seem justified by any statistical history. Maybe we just had too many troopers in the past.

Every session the people get the regular routine about not being able to afford state troopers, but Oregon's universities have one hell of a football program at taxpayer expense. Gotta give it to those politicians. They got those priorities straight Punt! MW

Show me the statistics that show that Oregon has somehow suffered from some kind of crime wave or highway accident epidemic in comparison to other states because of this.

Meth. We were able to reduce the problem caused by the local manufacturing by making ingredients harder to get, but there is still a lot of it coming from out of state. Additional state troopers would be a significant help in reducing the epidemic.

If I remember correctly, in the last biennium we increased the budget for the department of corrections by 33%, from 900 millions to 1.2 billions. If this is not due to an increase in crime, what is it?

Kari Google doesn't have all the answers. Apparently there are some serious questions regarding the allocation of dollars nationally and in Oregon with football. Now while I am at work how about OSU's program. How much are they in hock to the taxpayers for over football? And what about PSU's? But that is just one of many examples of the state getting its priorities wrong, but that's just my opinion. MW

John,

It seems rather fanciful to think that a huge increase in state troopers "would be a significant help in reducing the (meth) epidemic." Meth is not the type of crime which state troopers anywhere have any kind of record of significantly reducing.

I don't see any connection between last biennium's corrections budget and future state trooper levels. Existing law enforcement levels seem quite capable of generating clients for the corrections system.

I think it still needs to be said: no one has constructed a fact supported argument to justify the proposed quantum jump in the number of state troopers. There is certainly lots of emotion generated by this topic, but no substance or analysis in favor of the increase.

Sal wrote: Every dollar that we currently spend dealing with chronic diseases that result from smokin, and 39 percent of the people on the OHP are smokers, is a dollar that we are not spending to provide health care to kids and families that really need it. Our government has a vested interest and a moral obligation to recoup some of those costs.

My question is where we draw the line on the government's "moral obligation" to recoup some of the costs. Smoking is very bad for you and often leads to higher health care expenses later in life. So does eating lots of trans fat, or good old saturated fat, and too much sugar, and too many microbrews, and spending too much time blogging and not enough time jogging, unsafe sex, etc.

There is a large government cost to any number of these activities. Yet in my view, I'm not comfortable enacting government policies that attempt to "recoup" all of those costs. It opens up a huge pandora's box regarding personal responsibility and Big Brother's intrusion into personal decisions. Not to mention issues of discrimination (why do we tax the smoker who ends up on OHP with late-stage lung cancer, but not the obese woman who needs a quadruple bi-pass?)

I recognize that a tobacco tax is politically feasible, and if such a tax results in health care for all Oregon children, I'm willing to support it. But let's acknowledge among friends that it's a politically convenient solution. The best way to fund children's health care is through a broad-based tax that everyone pays, not one that regressively taxes the vices of one group, but leaves the rest unscathed.

How much tobacco do you need a day to live?

One could argue that taxing tobacco is worse than taxing high-fat foods simply because tobacco is chemically addictive (don't some claim it's worse than heroin?), whereas high-fat food isn't. It's government taking advantage of drug addicts to pay for programs, like kids health, that we all benefit from. That's got to violate the Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

I mean honestly, even if we did have some sort of Twinkie Tax, I just don't see how it could be spun as some hideous invasion of privacy or torture,

A Big Brother reference is a bit too close to Godwinning a thread, I say.

Had to look up Godwin. Clever. My point isn't to take this into absurd territory, just to point out that it's not a big leap from taxing tobacco "because smokers cost us money" to taxing twinkies, microbrews, a sedentary lifestyle, and unsafe sex (tax on STD treatment? abortions?). All of these things cost taxpayers money, so when Sal says that government has a moral obligation to recoup these costs, the old-school liberal in me gets nervous. Do we really want government to get even further into the area of regulating behavior? Is that the liberty that we're fighting for?

Again, I see the practical political reason for an increase in the tobacco tax, but I don't see the philosophical reason -- at least not one that's consistent with liberalism.

Steven, I assume you're trying to be funny and not condescending -- but it's hard to tell. To return to my main point, let me ask this: Leaving the politics aside, do you think kid's health care should be funded through a broad-based payroll tax or a tobacco tax? If both could pass, which would you prefer?

Insofar as adjusting tax policy to account for economic externalities (another word to look up), I simply don't see how that can be considered incompatable with liberalism.

Because liberalism used to be, and still should be, about more than just using the power of government to enforce our own behavioral choices on others. It's about making the social contract work as best we can while still preserving individual liberty to the greatest extent possible. It's the difference between government banning trans fats or just ensuring that people have information about them. Or government banning pot versus just ensuring that people are educated about its negative effects. I find it troubling that many of the people arguing for a ban on trans fats are the same ones signing petitions to legalize pot. Both positions cannot be consistent with liberalism.

As for using the tax code to account for negative externalities, if we were talking about a tobacco tax that would be used to fund smoking cessation programs and that is intended to reduce the number of smokers than I would acknowledge your point. But we're not. We're talking about a tax to fund kid's health, which will now be dependent on those "addicts" continuing their addiction. Even if it is legitimate for the government to try to change your otherwise legal behavior (and I don't cede that point), this isn't the way to do it.

"As for using the tax code to account for negative externalities, if we were talking about a tobacco tax that would be used to fund smoking cessation programs and that is intended to reduce the number of smokers than I would acknowledge your point. But we're not. We're talking about a tax to fund kid's health, which will now be dependent on those "addicts" continuing their addiction. Even if it is legitimate for the government to try to change your otherwise legal behavior (and I don't cede that point), this isn't the way to do it."

Well, I don't know. If people quit or cut back, that's a worthwhile goal, and at least plenty of experts say that people DO smoke less if it costs more. And, the state will save money if people smoke less.

And, if people don't smoke less, then the state will collect the extra taxes, which it can use for a worthy purpose.

Sounds like a win-win.

Curt