Senator James Bunning 2010, Scorns Others’ Financial Needs/ But in 2007 Made Sure His Special Groups had Their Incomes Protected
Mar 2nd, 2010 | 20 responses
Sen. Bunning, reported tonight as giving the unsenatorial ‘middle digit’ to a reporter, also threw a hissy fit on camera. He was outraged that the press would dare to question him, he an elected public offical, about his purposely standing in the way of vulnerable others’ income support today, essentially monkey-wrenching the government.
But wait, I remember in 2007, Bunning bent over backward to protect his own special homie groups’ incomes. At the same time, he was rabid about defeating the SCHIP bill which would have extended health care for many children and families.
Bunning’s rationale for defeating the bill was so tobacco sellers in his state of Kentucky would not suffer financially should cigarettes be taxed to help decrease devastating and preventable illnesses, and to help extend SCHIP nationwide.
I’ve been to Kentucky many times as a teen, crossing the state line to ‘Loo’ville’ to the road shacks for the most divine get-down nasty blues that side of Chi. I saw how terribly poor many of the Kentuckians were and still are. ‘Tobacco farmer’ is a misnomer for many. Often poor people lived in a shotgun shack with only a tiny front and side yard planted in tobacco. The families were living on subsistence, horribly uneducated, with supperating wounds and loss of teeth and other signs of ill health amongst the poor.
I dont find that Bunning has tried to make this sad part of Kentucky’s economy any better than Michigan had the foresight to try to make inroads to retool/ educate/ manufacturing and autoworkers before it became curtains for most everyone…
and practically all of Northern Indiana, Michigan and parts of Ohio, over time, practically rusted shut permanently.
Bunning’s rationale of quasi-protecting Kentuckian ‘tobacco suppliers’ back in 2007 was that the hazards of cigarette smoking and income to his Kentucky tobacco feeders could not possibly be trimmed. Far better to leave more children without health coverage, and to keep tobacco going so children and adults had a good chance onging to get the ‘habit’ so Bunning’s people could continue to ‘farm’ an increaingly depreciated cash crop.
Just a note, last year 2009, it is said Bunning missed more than half the Senate votes on various bills without reasons given. Colleagues are said to be reporting he is quite secretive about his whereabouts, and increasingly roused to rages. He’s 78 years old.
Bunning says he’s being squeezed out of running 2010 by his own party who oppose fund raising for him. The sad part, to me, is he may be suffering from something that could be way beyond wanting to weirdly go out with a bad ‘lookie at me’ scene. The Republicans who deserve to find a decent and strong transformative moment for their party, aren’t going to find it in Bunning
… or anyone who, for whatever reason, acts like a child tantrumming on the supermarket floor… and obstructs income for those in great need (and who dont even have a front yard planted in tobacco), as well as government projects in situ that cost a mint to stop and then start up again later. Something is wrong re Bunning. Something.
Below is the salient part of Sen Bunning’s speech before Senate in 2007, ‘protecting people’s jobs’ vociferously, albeit with his bizarre ‘logic.’
“…That’s right. Revenue is expected to go down over time as the number of legal sales of tobacco products declines.
Whatever its other problems, the tobacco tax is a poor foundation for SCHIP. We are matching a declining source of revenue with a growing federal program. This does not make fiscal sense.
If we were honest, and truly wanted to fully fund SCHIP spending with a tobacco tax, the federal government would have to encourage people to smoke.
That’s what this chart shows. The federal government would need an additional 22.4 million smokers by the year 2017.
Of course, I don’t support any such effort, but this highlights the budget gap that this bill is sure to create. The revenue for this program is going to have to come from more tax increases down the road.
And we all say we oppose regressive taxes. But what are we considering today? A highly regressive tax. In fact, this tax is among the most regressive types of taxes we could consider.
In my state, the impact on low income taxpayers will be compounded. It will hit low income Kentuckians, Kentucky tobacco farmers, and every citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Although there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of tobacco farmers in my state due to the tobacco buyout, tobacco continues to play an important role in Kentucky’s agricultural landscape.
Tobacco barns and small plots of tobacco still dot the Kentucky landscape. Cash receipts for tobacco are projected to contribute between $300 -$350 million to Kentucky’s economy this year.
An increase in the excise tax on tobacco will drive down the demand for consumption. This will result in less tobacco being purchased from Kentucky tobacco farmers by manufacturers – both cigarette and non-cigarette.
It will most likely force the specialty growers in my state – Kentucky burley leaf and Kentucky Wisconsin leaf – out of business. These are small family farms in rural Kentucky that rely on the revenue for their crops.
The money they get from tobacco pays their mortgage, puts their kids through school or allows them to keep farming.
The CBO has estimated that the SCHIP proposal will result in a 5-6% reduction in demand for tobacco during its first year.
This will most likely cause a $5.4 million reduction in payments to rural farmers in my state next year under the master settlement agreement.
Some people will say there’s nothing wrong with all this, because it will force some people to quit smoking and we’re using the money to help poor children.
But, who gets credit for this supposed act of charity? This plan would take money from one group of poor people and give it to another.“
20 Responses to “Senator James Bunning 2010, Scorns Others’ Financial Needs/ But in 2007 Made Sure His Special Groups had Their Incomes Protected”
IOKIYAR.
As odd as it sounds, Bunning's logic in the tobacco vote makes sense. I've thought that for years: how can you fund anything based on taxes you collect from an activity you want to stop? I don't mind they tax cigarettes, good riddance to them, and it's been a nice short-term revenue stream for governments coast to coast. But to rely on it for major programs, doesn't make sense.
He picked a terrible time to fight this particular fight, and picked the wrong bill to do it on, but hey, he does have a point.
His intended message is admirable, but only a callous or childishly contrarian maniac could defend his hypocrisy and utterly solipsist way of delivering the message.
I think it can be done if you project the decrease in revenue and can cover it with other revenue or cost saving somewhere else. Say…less people smoking means medicare cost will go down long term….very long term. They guy is right though…as a sole foundation for a large program…you can't use tax revenue from a behavior you are trying to stop.
In general though…I agree with Axel on this.
Well that's a fair question allright; here in Michigan the lottery is used to generate funds for education, so we encourage gambling to pay for schools. In the larger scheme of things some of our exports are clearly detrimental (arms, tobacco) but bring in huge profit. Go figure…
Bunning voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, and to continue to fund the Iraq War on repeated occasions. Funny that in those instances he wasn't worried about the impact on the deficit.
Jim Bunning was a helluva pitcher who could have done the country a favor by finding a career in baseball.
I'm in agreement with Axel and shannon on this one. The principles that Bunning explaining (both now, on the PAYGO exemption and then, on the use of sin taxes to pay for programs) are very valid. It's just a shame that he's not consistent in standing for those principles at other times.
I think it's worth noting that majority parties of late have been forcing these awkward situations, and purposely doing so. The GOP did it on the Iraq War all the time…that's why even the progressives who opposed the war for the most part found it impossible to cut off funding since the GOP framed the debate on funding around whether or not the Dems 'supported the troops'. Similarly now, Bunning is villified for not supporting the unemployed, or for not caring about Medicare patients whose doctors won't be available if the higher levels of doctor reimbursements are cut.
The trouble is that all of the demagogued positions do make some sense (of course no one wants troops to have their funding cut out from under them, and those who are seeking work but can't find it need help, etc…) but something has to give. That's why we should stop falling for all of the rhetorical BS and figure out what we as voters think the spending priorities should be (while taking into account that all of it has to be paid for.)
Have you noticed that while Bunning has been ranting, Father_Time has been absent. Either way, I FT is ok.
If the budget wasn't so massive…I think I would enjoy taking a hatch to it and posting it on a website. I have the web skills, but not the reading time
I wouldn't have as many doubts about Mr. Bunning's and his party's newly found concern for deficit spending if they were actively working on finding revenue sources to pay for the trillions of dollars in unfunded programs and adventures they approved when they controlled the government.
[...] reports on Bunning’s inconsistency and other strange tactics. And an early 2009 HuffPo report on [...]
” That's why we should stop falling for all of the rhetorical BS”
Thanks for the good laugh CS, it brightened my day.
Bunning is a hero. The Dems promised a pay-go system and now they're trying to slip another spending bill through by whipping up their loony left wing base.
Today it's Bunning. A couple of weeks ago it was Shelby putting holds on 70+ nominations. Maybe it's time to reconsider the Senate rule that allows one senator to unilaterally block necessary legislative action.
Judge, [grin]
“Today it's Bunning. A couple of weeks ago it was Shelby putting holds on 70+ nominations.”
These could be probes. I.e., the GOP could be trying both tactics in Congress against the Dems, and tests of public opinion. If the Dems can do it, why not the GOP?
That's probably giving them far too much credit for what they're doing, but it's a possible explanation.
P.S. This Web site is still neglecting it, but the big Chicago gun control case is starting now, before the Supreme Court. Gun control itself is almost irrelevent with this; this is a big federalism (federal supremacy) case. It's easily extensible to all kinds of political issues. I can't wait to see what the Justices have to say about this.
DLS,
Agree about the gun case, though a little off topic. Many issues: federalism, states rights, Second Amendment, substantive due process v. procedural due process. Scalia's between a rock & a hard place…pro gun but anti substantive due process. Should be fun to watch.
Maybe Bunning will try to put a hold on Supreme Court deliberations.
Gun case was off topic, but I wanted to catch you when and where I spotted you about this. It's a shame this is neglected (not only on this Web site, but everywhere).
This case is huge, the only thing short of the be-all and end-all of federal-state relations as far as a case can go.
Bunning sounds like a chameleon, one who changes to fit or become transparent for his own 'skin' and blends with the environment of politics whoever would elevate him to 'his mark' long after his lifetime.
His logic of revenue coming from other sources is like 'Pulling a rabbit out of a hat' and because of his narrowsided thinking with no regard to the present urgency is both stalmate and nonproductive, His position should be replaced at the nearest opportunity to retire him.
I have a sibling living in Kentucky and they supplement their income to feed their horses with a small tobacco barn type farming.
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuse…
But why did he vote against the paygo bill???