Guess what. In spite of this, I support the bill because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Why not start a campaign to increase lard consumption among the poor, or, better yet, alcohol consumption?

In addition to the fear of junk lawsuits, it’s commonly anticipated that increased taxes on alcohol and a tax someday on fat are taxes the Democrats would be happy to levy.

Y’all can behave as children and be successful at your typical appeals to emotion (rather than to reason) all you want, but the tax is a bad idea, and what happens if consumption and tax revenue decline?

The tax, in fact, is one defect in the new bill as well as in the old bill. It is impossible for you to argue the fact away. (Well, maybe you can convince yourselves you can, but you cannot and will not.)

A valid scheme for sumptuary (”sin”) taxes on tobacco and alcohol would be to pay specifically for diseases attributable to the use of these substances, and would be ideally at the level that matches the costs the use of these substances to society. It’s not at all a suitable revenue source for a general program like this (which still, as has always been true, has never been only about children).

The new bill deserves a veto, one reason for which is this tax. Let’s see a real compromise from the Democrats next time.

(the latest on S-CHIP here and here)

Ridiculous argumentation by Bush and his suppoeters!

A concern for the poor would make sense if there was a proposed tax on milk, bread or meat. But tobacco?!?
Why not start a campaign to increase lard consumption among the poor, or, better yet, alcohol consumption?

BTW, I workded it out, and in NYC, a tax increase of 10% would be the equivalent of having to decrease cigarette consumption by about 3 cigarettes a week.
What a sacrifice the poor would be making.

The logic here is on the same level as what led to the fake FEMA news conference. There is no logic and no excuse. There is only shabby pandering to special interests.