Michelle Malkin » Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!

Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!

By Michelle Malkin • January 14, 2009 04:43 AM

It’s baaaack. Remember S-CHIP? The Democrats are racing their universal health care Trojan Horse through the House today and in the Senate by Friday. Yesterday evening after I filed my syndicated column (printed below) on Obama and the Democrats’ first massive tax increase of 2009, the 285-page text of the proposed S-CHIP expansion went online. It’s H.R. 2 and you can read the PDF in its entirety here — something a significant number of congressional members will not do before voting for the behemoth bill. The tax portion of the bill is broken out here (thanks to the Stogie Guys). Pelosi’s press release is here.

Every legal tobacco product from premanufactured cigarettes and cigarette papers to cigars to roll-your-cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco will be taxed out the wazoo. Take roll-your-own tobacco. It’s currently taxed at $1.0969/lb. The Obama/Democrat S-CHIP plan would hike that to $24.62/lb. Cigarette taxes would rise from $19.50 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for small cigarettes and from $40.95 per thousand to $105.00 per thousand for large cigarettes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to have an open debate on the bill. House GOP leaders lodged a protest. (But remember that 42 Republicans sided with Pelosi last January in a failed attempt to override President Bush’s veto.)

So much for transparency and openness. And so much for those promises to provide tax relief to “ordinary Americans.” As usual, Barry O was just blowin’ smoke:

Stay tuned. I’ll be keeping track of the non-debate debate today and the Trojan Horse Republicans who will get along, go along, and bend over. (Update: Liveblogging the floor proceedings here.)

***

My column…

Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

“Everybody’s going to have to give,” President-elect Barack Obama warned over the weekend. And some people will have to give more than others – starting with low-income smokers. Democrats are rushing this week to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).

Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny’s prescription for recession: Punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health care Trojan Horse.

Obama and his liberal Democrat colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating “progressive” values, don’t they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities, and have less than a high school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50-times-larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.

That’s the dictionary definition of “regressive,” not “progressive.”

And what will that money buy? S-CHIP, you’ll recall, is the joint federal-state program that covers health insurance for children and families at or near the poverty line. Over the past two years, President Bush and the Republicans took a rare, fiscal conservative stand against widening eligibility criteria far beyond the working poor. Democrats wanted to be able to enroll families with incomes at 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level – adding an estimated $35 billion over five years to the existing S-CHIP funding costs.

Opponents of this Hillarycare-esque push were lambasted as cruel child-haters for arguing that the program should not be extended to include well-off families, illegal aliens, and single adults. They were attacked as heartless penny-pinchers for questioning the wisdom of subsidizing the S-CHIP expansion with a dwindling and unstable funding source (smoking is on the decline and cigarette tax revenues are shrinking). Left-wing comedienne Joy Behar called me a “b*tch” on national television for reporting that the Democrats’ poster family for S-CHIP expansion to cover the “poor,” the Frost family of Baltimore, owned middle-class assets including two properties and three cars.

But if these do-gooders truly cared about The Children, they’d be cursing mightily over the squandering of current S-CHIP funds and the cheating of the very children the program was intended to help. State data analyzed by the Department of Health and Human Services reveal that 13 states spent more than 44 percent of their S-CHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women. Michigan topped the list with more than 70 percent of its federal children’s health insurance funds earmarked for adults who have no kids.

In New Jersey, people earning as much as $295,000 were enrolled in its S-CHIP program dubbed “NJ FamilyCare.” Like many states, New Jersey failed to check eligibility for all program enrollees and refuses to do stringent assets tests. As I’ve noted before, the refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. After an audit found that the program had paid $43.1 million to participants without knowing if they were eligible, Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris observed that it “called into serious question the state’s competence to run health insurance programs.” Multiply that by 50 states.

How will the Democrats prevent such fraud? I’d give you more details about the Obama/Democrat tax hike on the poor to expand children’s health care coverage for the non-poor and non-children, but as of Tuesday afternoon, there was no legislative text available. And no hearings are planned before the expansion is rushed through for Obama to sign. The Wall Street Journal did report that Democrats plan to lift decade-old restrictions to allow legal immigrant children to tap into S-CHIP. (Open-borders activists hope it’s the camel’s nose under tent for illegal alien applicants.) But there’s no word on whether (or how) citizenship eligibility requirements will be strengthened. The Democrat leadership hasn’t responded to Republican entreaties on that issue, either. Hurray for the deliberative process.

What I can tell you for sure is that the S-CHIP expansion is a rest stop on the road to a universal health insurance entitlement, built on the backs of overtaxed, low-income workers. (Listen to Democrat Tom Vilsack admit it openly here.)

Welcome to the era of “shared sacrifice.”

Posted in: Health care

Printer Friendly

comments (206)

trackbacks (18)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#201

On January 14th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, Jeff2161 said:

Why shouldn’t they put it to the poor ? The poor will vote Democrat anyway…
#202

On January 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm, Trollman said:

graysonret said:

And because we live in a civil society, we try to help those in need. Which means we all end up paying for completely unnecessary health costs so someone can selfishly indulge themselves.

Not defending smoking at all, but, sir, that smacks of socialism.

Look, your post was far too long to not have paragraph breaks, so I did not read your post past the first sentence.

So because I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s stupidity, that “smacks of socialism?!”

By the nature of our society and economy, smoking does affect everyone else in it, whether you choose to smoke or not. And that is just a fact, whether you like it or not.

You do not have the right to scream “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Why should others have to suffer for your whim? I am all for a woman having control over her own body, but her body ends where another begins.

So all of y’all who demand the right to smoke, claiming it is your body, you should be able to do whatever you like… well, it goes beyond your body, so it is everybody else’s business, thank you very much.
#203

On January 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, dadinseattle said:

This represents the ultimate government intrusion into the lives of individuals.
It demonstrates that power hungry politicians will use any available means to leverage the clout they hold to reach out and control our lives.
It is a direct assault of the unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness.
Making laws that they know people will break gives them even more power over the masses.
Unfortunately those in power now, including representatives of both parties, see no downside to their actions.
The smokers are the bane of society and so what if it is patently unfair to them to carry the burden of funding for another government control program.
Remember whomever accepts the benefits of such a program have relinquished even more of their self determination.
Dependency on the government by the people.
The government of the people, by the people, is disappearing.
Ayn Rand fictionally predicted this government in 1957 in her novel,
Atlas Shrugged, and I see life imitating art (except she saw it first hand under the communists) playing out before our eyes!
#204

On January 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, Salt said:

On January 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pm, John Deaux said:

If Zombie-ism is a disease, does that mean my ammo purchases will be reimbursed under S-CHIP? Are they subject to deductible? Or is this one of those boondoggles where they don’t pay for prevention.

If zombie-ism is a disease (a la superrabies virus), then your ammo purchase would not be reimbursed.

If fact, it’s more likely that Code Pink and other groups would much prefer that we try harder to understand the zombies. After all, if they’re sick, we shouldn’t kill the poor things.

Who knows… Maybe even PETA would have a campaign to prevent zombies from eating meat since they would be at the top of the food chain (and we know how they hate whomever’s at the top).
#205

On January 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, Salt said:

On January 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm, Trollman said:
…

By the nature of our society and economy, smoking does affect everyone else in it, whether you choose to smoke or not. And that is just a fact, whether you like it or not.

You do not have the right to scream “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Why should others have to suffer for your whim? I am all for a woman having control over her own body, but her body ends where another begins.
…

Trollman, I can agree on second hand smoke ordinances in public spaces, but I would very much like to understand how, outside of second hand smoke, someone else’s decision to smoke affects me if I choose to not smoke. I’m guessing you’re going somewhere with the economic impacts to health care, etc, but I’m not a big fan of government run health care, either. Smokers pay more for their health insurance. I can agree with that as a consequence of their decision.

Your “Fire” in the theater case in point. I agree that this form of speech is not appropriate or legal in that forum, just as I can agree that smoking should not be permitted in public spaces.

However, that does not mean that all smoking should be illegal any more than all speech should be because of the “Fire” example.

We both agree on your abortion example, but that is a bit of a strawman in my opinion because I am not yet convinced that someone’s else decision to smoke affects me.

To some of us, this type of legislation is just one more small step to more control by the government. Even if I believed that they had the best of intentions, I do not trust government to stop at smoking and not continue into all the other aspects of our lives. Should they tax fatty foods higher? Regulate the amount of TV I watch? Perhaps I will have to pay more for Grand Theft Auto V because Hillery Clinton believes it increases violence.
#206

On January 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

Is it me or did anybody else notice the Obama commemorative plate in Michelle’s advertising over to the right >>>>>
#207

On January 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, flenser said:

Just as long as he doesn’t tax booze. I’ve a feeling we’ll all be wanting to drink heavily for the next few years.
#208

On January 14th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, nlebou said:

I know this is OT but, why do the Obama’s need to redecorate the white house? With the economy in the tank, isn’t that unnecessary spending?
#209

On January 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm, nlebou said:

CantCureStupid!!!! Where are you. We need you to do as you mentioned earlier, run against that moron Melancon. We have got to get him out of office. He voted for this crap also.
#210

On January 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, sonofdy said:

I know this is OT but, why do the Obama’s need to redecorate the white house? With the economy in the tank, isn’t that unnecessary spending?

After tossing arround trillions, what is a few million? Chump change.
#211

On January 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, nlebou said:

opps…..wrong thread….long day!
#212

On January 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, graysonret said:

Thank you, Salt. You answered before I could. Smoking is a dangerous habit, but then, so is a lot of other habits. I don’t like smoking, but I will disagree that it ought to be taxed separately because of its unpopularity. I’m not going to the second hand smoking controversy, because the verdict is still out scientifically. Third hand smoke is a ridiculous theory. It sets a fearful precedent that, once accepted, allows other products or behavior that is not “pc” at the time, to be taxed at a greater rate. In other words, it allows the government to indirectly control behavior by penalizing those that don’t meet its suggestions. That is my concern; not defending smoking. I am worried that the door is now open to government control in a new direction. Remember, all governments hate restraints and will always look for ways around it. That’s the point of the Constitution. “If men were angels, we wouldn’t need a government.”
#213

On January 14th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, jjmurphy said:

“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.”
– Robert LeFevre
#214

On January 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm, Jeff2161 said:

Mel Brooks from History of the World

@%!#$ the poor !