Sen. McCaskill's Response to Tobacco Tax

[cf2112]

Dear Mr. Chiles:

Thank you for contacting me regarding tobacco taxes. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the chance to respond.

You are right that Congress is considering an increase in the Federal Excise Tax on Tobacco to support children’s health care, namely the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP is an important program that provides affordable health insurance for low-income children. About 63,000 Missouri children currently rely on the program for their health care, and there are an additional 117,000 who are eligible but not enrolled. Missourians are increasingly concerned about growth in the numbers of the uninsured, especially kids. All Missouri children should have access to health care that supports their growth and development to ensure they remain healthy.

The problem, of course, is how to pay for expansion. The Senate Finance Committee, which deals with legislation pertaining to taxation, recently approved S. 1893, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act sponsored by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. This bill would help fund CHIP by increasing the cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack, with a proportional increase on other tobacco products. If passed, it would cover 3.3 million additional needy children, including many thousands from Missouri, who currently don't have health insurance.

I understand that many Missourians are opposed to any increase in the tobacco tax. Personally, I would have preferred to find another way to fund CHIP expansion. In fact, earlier this year, I voted against an amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res.21, which authorized the Finance Committee to consider raising the tobacco tax for children’s health care. However, I think it is extremely important that we reauthorize and expand CHIP. This is why I will support the bill, even if it means raising the tobacco tax.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to reach out with your thoughts and advice in the future.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

:closedmou No votes from me (Although I never would have anyway):angerFU:

 

[tobby4]

That is BS

 

[Electric Sheep]

What, are you surprised? This is a two-party system; you're either on one side or the other...and your elected official happens to be on the other side.

A letter isn't going to change anyone's opinion, no matter how logical and well thought out it may be.

 

[CWS]

What, are you surprised? This is a two-party system; you're either on one side or the other...and your elected official happens to be on the other side.

A letter isn't going to change anyone's opinion, no matter how logical and well thought out it may be.

Maybe not but a vote might.

 

[dpricenator]

That's a great 2-step he pulled right there. " I voted against it, but it's nessesary" F'n Bull Shit.

 

[Fox]

She could have saved a lot of typing by just typing in the translation: "This is another vote-buying, socialist program to get votes from the poor. You, Mr. Chiles, have money and it is your duty to give up some of it for me to guarantee my seat. Remember, 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!'" :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

 

[Broadway Joe]

That's a typical political stance, not clearly on one side or the other and where he stands on the subject depends on who's asking the question...

 

[Electric Sheep]

Maybe not but a vote might.

You are correct, sir!

 

[Headbanger]

Sounds like a typical politician response, talking from both sides of the mouth. At least you got a response; I got nothing back from my Senators.

 

[Electric Sheep]

I got responses back from both of mine:

Response #1:

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for contacting me regarding funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through increased tobacco taxes. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

As you may know, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created in 1997 to address the needs of uninsured children in America. It was designed for families who do not qualify for Medicaid, but cannot afford private insurance for their children. Over the past decade, SCHIP and Medicaid together have reduced the number of uninsured low-income children by one-third.

I fully support initiatives that increase Americans’ access to affordable health care. But, I believe Congress should not rely on budgetary gimmicks or tax increases. Instead, Congress should focus on eliminating wasteful government spending. In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, investigative arm of Congress, has identified billions of dollars in federal expenditures that are vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. The GAO found that more than 10 percent of SCHIP enrollees are actually adults whose participation in SCHIP is diverting funds from the needs of low-income children. Instead of raising taxes, Congress should strengthen SCHIP by considering the President’s proposal to terminate or reduce the budgets of over 140 inefficient or ineffective government programs.

You may be interested to know that I offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 budget resolution that would have strengthened SCHIP and would have ensured that it first covers low-income children across the country. In addition, my amendment would have allowed states to continue using innovative strategies to cover low-income children; improve and strengthen the oversight of SCHIP; and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as my congressional colleagues and I consider healthcare funding during the 110th Congress. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

Response #2:

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for contacting me regarding tobacco use. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

The federal tax rate on cigarettes remained unchanged at eight cents per pack from 1951 to 1982. Since 1982, the rate has been increased several times, and the current federal tax on cigarettes is 39 cents per pack.

S. Con. Res. 21, the Senate Budget Resolution, authorizes an increase in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 to raise money for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The increased tax would raise an estimated $7.6 billion per year for this important program. However, I voted against the Senate Budget Resolution, and the Conference Report, because it increases spending to nearly $15 trillion over five years and includes a historic $732 billion tax increase. The Budget Resolution fails to extend vital tax cuts that are driving our growing economy and instead creates the steepest tax hike in history.

S. 1799 was introduced by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) on July 17, 2007. The bill seeks to apply rate parity to the excise tax on small cigars and small cigarettes by raising the tax from $1.828 cents per thousand to $19.50 per thousand units. Currently, there is a maximum federal tax of 4 cents per small cigar and a maximum federal tax of 5 cents per large cigar (or 20.719% of the sales price, not to exceed $48.75 per 1,000 units). This legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, on which I do not serve. Should this legislation come before the full Senate, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Translation: Both of my Republican Senators are against this potential SCHIP-related bill, but not for any cigar or tobacco related tax reason. Shoot, only one of them even mentioned "large cigars" at all!

Again, it's all about toting the Party Line. :crackwhip

 

[cf2112]

What, are you surprised? This is a two-party system; you're either on one side or the other...and your elected official happens to be on the other side.

A letter isn't going to change anyone's opinion, no matter how logical and well thought out it may be.

Not surprised at all, she's a lib's lib and will tow the party line.

Maybe not but a vote might.

Hard to vote out the dem's but Lord knows I try.

 

[Electric Sheep]

Personally, I find it amusing to write letters to our elected officials and receive such off-topic, generic, form-letter responses. I've gotten hundred of these things over the years, and they're almost all like this.

On that note, however, I must admit that the letter from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was about as CLOSE to an actual response as I've ever received from any elected official. It makes me think that she might -- MIGHT -- have actually read what I wrote.

Maybe.

 

[CWS]

Personally, I find it amusing to write letters to our elected officials and receive such off-topic, generic, form-letter responses. I've gotten hundred of these things over the years, and they're almost all like this.

On that note, however, I must admit that the letter from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was about as CLOSE to an actual response as I've ever received from any elected official. It makes me think that she might -- MIGHT -- have actually read what I wrote.

Maybe.

Agreed. It really boils me when I take the time to write an ANTI letter and get back a form that says we are with you in backing the intiative. The best was our congressman who actually called me to respond. Blew me away. He's quirky but at least he represents me.

 

[oneaday]

My .02
Instead more anti smoking legislation/regulation which equals less consumption of tobacco products, have more pro smoking (with limits) regulation which promotes more consumtion of tobacco products and the tax increase would'nt be necessary.

Wow I just woke up from a crazy dream.

 

[Matthew]

Sounds like a typical politician response, talking from both sides of the mouth. At least you got a response; I got nothing back from my Senators.

No responses here either.

 

[Fox]

My .02
Instead more anti smoking legislation/regulation which equals less consumption of tobacco products, have more pro smoking (with limits) regulation which promotes more consumtion of tobacco products and the tax increase would'nt be necessary.

Wow I just woke up from a crazy dream.

I want some of what Ken is smoking. . .:rolling:

 

[Clinton]

This bill would help fund CHIP by increasing the cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack, with a proportional increase on other tobacco products.

Here your Senator indirectly hit upon the reason that this bill really rubs cigar smokers the wrong way: The proposed tax on cigars is NOT being proportionately increased.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is $0.39. The Senate bill will hike that to $1.00, a 222% increase, yet it remains a flat tax.

The current tax on cigars is a flat $0.05. That's actually pretty low, but they want to change it from a flat tax to 53% of the wholesale cost. A $10 cigar would go from $10.05 to $15.30. A $20 cigar would jump to $30. There would be a cap of $10 per cigar. (Note that the 20,000% increase commonly cited is more than a bit misleading.)

On the other hand, the House of Representatives is proposing a 44% tax capped at $1 per cigar. That $10 cigar would now cost you $11, NOT $15.30. The $20 smoke would go to $21, NOT $30. That is a HUGE difference and, personally, I could live with it.

So while cigarettes will remain at a flat tax, cigar smokers will be forced to pay a very much disproportionate amount for their vice. Even though cigars account for less than 1% of all tobacco sales, Congress is supporting this bill for two reasons:

• The cigar industry (and the number of its customers) is simply not large enough to effectively fight it. We're insignificant.
• Any politician who is seen to support smokers over the welfare of children is going to lose a hell of a lot more votes than what you and I would provide.

Face it, cigars have been improperly classed in the public eye with cigarettes and everyone knows that cigarettes are the source of all evil. Our cigars are going to cost us progressively more while there will be fewer and fewer places where we'll be allowed to enjoy them. Things are never going to get better for us in the NANNY STATE. Smoke 'em while you got 'em, fellas.

 

[Halon]

I understand that there would be an extra $5 to pay on a $10 stick, but I fail to see how us consumers could possibly be expected to pay all of the difference. I honestly believe that the vendors are going to have to suck up at least half of this tax. CO's cigar prices are already high, and as much as I would hate for a $10 stick to now be $12.50, it'll be alright.
One thing I was wondering, though, is what will happen to auction sites like cbid? I have no clue how they would deal with tax (who pays it, if it gets paid), and am not sure if they would grow in popularity or disappear. Any insight on this would be great.


TYLER

 

[Rank_Tyro]

<rant>

I hate to say it, but, fuck the children.

All too often I see bad legislation that curtails my freedoms and rights being pushed through by politicians that say "think of the children".

I personally don't have any children, but even if I did, my feelings would be the same. I would and will provide for my children if I ever have any. Other people should do the fucking same.

</rant>

 

[tobby4]

Is there another Mockingbird pissing you off Rank??