A Few Quotes on Obamacare

Here's a few quotes on the so-called dire need for health care reform.

"We will work through some of the differences we have among the members, both Democrats and Republicans, with the objective that we will have a bill," Waxman said. "We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again. We cannot — quite frankly, cannot — go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system." Rep Henry Waxman D- California.

"I don't know many small-business men or women who are making themselves $280,000, so I am not sure that very many small businesses are going to be affected by this," Hoyer said. "But we are committed to paying for health care reform. The Senate is committed to paying for health care reform. . . . That is one option that has been proposed." House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md

Both quotes from the Belleville News-Democrat July 14, 2009 "House Democrats propose surtax on rich to pay for health care."

And now for a counter quote to both:

"Imagine, if you will, that I am an idiot.
Then, imagine that I am also a Congressman.
But, alas, I repeat myself."-- Mark Twain 1866

To Mr. Waxman, please read my blog on June 16, 2009 on health care reform. Bill Clinton said the same thing you did back in 1993. His prophecy of doom and gloom did not materialize. Health care reform advocates like yourself should read the parable about the little boy who cried "Wolf!" The USA has hobbled by without the so-called needed reforms we can probably get by a little longer. Maybe we should focus on economic recovery first then if there is a need for health care reforms it will be obvious to anyone.

To Mr. Hoyer, just because you don't know many small business people making $250,000 doesn't mean they aren't out there. Maybe you do know some and they just don't feel their earnings are any of your business.

Barney Frank attempts to be Big Brother

Have you read George Orwell's novel 1984? The movie's male protagonist, Winston Smith, was a civil servant who rewrote history to suit the government, embodied by Big Brother. The government maintained all records and newspapers. Whenever something happened that was contradicted by past records or policies, the contrary items were purged and replaced with records that supported the new policy.

As you will see in this youtube video of Barney Frank interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor, Mr. Frank seems to think that all the things he said and did in the past would not come back to haunt him.



Lots more to come on this later.

Last rant on the smoking prevention act (for now)

Remember the Master Tobacco Settlement back in the 1990s? One of the rationales for this legislative extortion was the money would fund smoking prevention programs. Here is a graph from the campaign for smoke free kids. This group supported the smoking prevention act even though they have proof on their website that the states did not use their funds for cessation programs. Where did the money go? Wherever the state legislatures felt like spending it. Not unlike President Obama's campaign chat with Joe the Plumber. Obama wanted to "spread the wealth". A nice vague statement that can easily be sidestepped and revised ad nauseam later.

Spending Graph

The smaller parts of the graph are the amounts the states spent on their smoking cessation programs. The larger one is the amounts states received from the Master Tobacco Settlement and their current tobacco sales and excise taxes. You need a magnifying glass for the spending on smoking prevention programs. You can see the receipts from Tobacco taxes from across a large sized room. Do the math and you will see the states spent less than $7 billion over a 10 year period. During the same 10 year period they received over $200 billion. When politicians receive over $20 billion a year, they are not going to kill the goose that lays this many golden eggs. That is why the smoking prevention programs get such a small percentage of the tax receipts that tobacco generates.

To learn more about how we are doing on smoking cessation, visit Campaign for smoke free kids, just click here

another rant on the smoking prevention act

Let me quote H. R. 1256 title II section 201:

Directs the Secretary (of Health and Human Services) to issue regulations that require color graphics (italics mine) depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany cigarette label statements.

GovTrack.us. H.R. 1256--111th Congress (2009): Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) (accessed Jun 27, 2009)

Color graphics of lung cancer in a 7-11 store or a Walgreens? That is way beyond the point of unacceptable. 20% of Americans smoke. 20% of Americans are obese. (so overweight it is a major threat to their health. Mainly from Heart Disease, high blood pressure and Diabetes) Is congress going to mandate that Hostess show color graphics of the negative health consequences of twinkies, ding dongs, ho hos, cup cakes and snow balls? That will really enhance the shopping experience for families and children. I have a feeling the tobacco industry will go after this requirement and win.

smoking prevention act redux

One more problem I have with this act is the glaring hypocrisy in both the act itself and in the politicians involved with it. If nicotine is addictive why does the act not allow the FDA to ban nicotine entirely? Alas, I am repeating myself from an earlier post. Banned or outlawed items cannot be taxed. Notice the act allows the nicotine levels to be lowered. This means smokers will have to increase their cigarette consumption to get their daily fix of nicotine. This will increase the tax revenue while exposing smokers to more of the thousands of ingredients in cigarette smoke(several of which are carcinogens and other toxins hazardous to human health). If our politicians are willing to live with the increased health hazards smokers incur in exchange for more tax dollars to spend, it's time for Americans to really wake up and demand better of our elected leaders. It could not get much worse.

When President Obama gladly signed this bill, he said it was to prevent future generations of America's children from picking up the habit. I am a big fan of irony so this statement really takes the cake. He admits to being a former heavy smoker and to "falling off the wagon" since the inauguration. He also said he would not smoke in front of his wife, his kids or in the White House. The reporter he told this to was in a generous mood and did not press him about the Rose Garden, the Presidential limo, Air Force and Marine Corps One etc. Mr. President, America's children are not dumb. They will see it as another "do as I say, not as I do" advice and lose a little respect for you. Good Grief, you promised your wife you'd quit if she let you run for the Presidency. If she can give up her lifestyle and home for 4 years in exchange for being one of the most powerful and influential women in America, You can quit smoking. People do it every day. Chew the gum, wear a patch, get an electronic cigarette.

I have a suggestion on how to manage your stress and lower the urge to smoke. Stop trying to do everything you want done in one year. Don't trust me, read the US Constitution. Unless you're impeached, you've got 4 years to accomplish things. Make this year's goal economic recovery first. To aid this just get one health care reform a done deed. Put a cap on malpractice claims payouts. The health care providers and insurers will appreciate this and might be more willing to help with your other goals later on. The only people who will oppose you will be the American Trial Lawyers Association.

another comment on the family smoking prevention act.

Remember President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year? What he meant to say was no raises via federal income tax. Unless you have been living in a very remote country or under a really huge rock, you know that our politicians have lots and lots of ways to tax us. The recent increase in the federal tobacco tax is going to be paid by smokers unless they decide to quit. Incomewise, guess who does most of the smoking??? If you say the poor and lower middle class people, you can move to the front of the class. Let me quote Jane Gravelle, senior specialist in Economic Policy Finance and Government Division of the Congressional Research Service. (yes, the US Congress's research service)

It is generally recognized that cigarette taxes are one of the most regressive taxes, that is, a tax that falls more heavily on lower income individuals as a percentage of income.

At first glance, it seems President Obama is defeating his own goals by putting a very regressive tax on smokers. Bear in mind, this report is dated June 19, 2007 before that latest excise tax increase. I then had an epiphany moment. The rationale for the tax increase was to fund the State Childrens Health Insurance Plan. So, the smokers are actually helping to insure their children. Around here, Marlboros went from $4 and change to $5.25 to $5.60 a pack. I am sure poor people have no problem ponying up the extra money knowing it funds their kids health insurance. Way to go President Obama and Congress!!!

To read Ms. Gravelle's report go to http://opencrs.com/ and put order code RS22681 in the search box. The name of the report is "The Cigarette Tax Increase to Finance SCHIP".

A Few Comments on the Family smoking prevention and tobacco control act.

Today, June 22, 2009 President Obama signed into law the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. Let's review a few of his remarks during the ceremony. I am getting these quotes directly from the whitehouse's blog. Just go to whitehouse.gov and click on the blog.

Obama accused the tobacco industry of targeting young people, exposing them to a "constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn and where they play. Most insidiously, they are offered products with flavorings that mask the taste of tobacco and make it even more tempting."

R J Reynolds agreed to stop this in 2006, so I'm not seeing a whole lot of benefit from this, especially when one of the most popular cigarette flavorings, menthol, was exempted.

Also, the remark about "constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn and where they play." If where they learn means public schools, I do not recall ever seeing a cigarette ad at my grade or high school. ( I got my h.s. diploma in 1971 in Richmond, Va. The home of Phillip Morris) They were not for sale at my schools, kids who smoked had to buy them in stores. Seniors were allowed to smoke on a huge section of an oak tree outside the shop class if they had a note from their parents. Everyone else had to take their chances in the restrooms. My, how times have changed. But alas, I digress.

Mr. President, now that you are a de facto president of Government . . . wait I meant the new and soon to be improved General Motors, will you restrict auto ads aimed at younger people? Think of the lives you could save. Probably none. Let's get real here. With a few exceptions, most products are marketed to younger people. They are the next wave of customers and marketers want to establish brand loyalty with their newest prospective customers. Cigarette makers are providing a wanted product to consumers, just like car makers, insurance companies, banks, grocery stores etc.

I don't smoke. I used to but gave it up when the bad effects of smoking overwhelmed my desire to smoke. This is how most smokers stop. They just get tired of it and quit. I used to work for Social Security. I was amazed at the number of people I interviewed to start their disability benefits for lung cancer who had 2 packs of smokes, one in each shirt pocket. I know some people will smoke until the day it kills them. I cannot stop that and neither will this bill. More to come on this later.