Smokers hit with a $0.62 cigarette tax

"However they satisfy their nicotine cravings, tobacco users are facing a big hit as the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.Tobacco companies and public health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are trying to turn the situation to their advantage. The major cigarette makers raised prices a couple of weeks ago, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01.Medical groups see a tax increase right in the middle of a recession as a great incentive to help persuade smokers to quit."

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year, and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease."

So this is curiousity on my part. I am wondering how everyone feels about the tobacco tax. Studies have shown it has lead to decreased smoking and the funds usually go to help state governments. I think this increase is going to fund Children's Health insurance funds. So, is this a good idea to increase the tax or bad? I just want to know what the hardcore conservatives think about this.

Too much Obama?

I was surprised to read the following excerpt from the following NY Times article by Peter Barker:

"Had enough yet? Tune into CNN and you may find President Obama's latest public town hall meeting. Flip to NBC and you might come across the President yukking it up with Jay Leno. Turn to ESPN, and there he is giving his college basketball picks. Click over to CBS and there he is once again, chatting with Steve Kroft on "60 minutes."

"Mr. Kroft asked Mr. Obama if he was 'punch drunk.' If he was not, a lot of others must be by now. But the blitz is not over yet. Viewers hoping to escape reality won't find their reality television at 8 p.m Eastern Time on Tuesday, since the president will once again command the airwaves with a prime-time news conference, this time on all the major broadcast and cable news networks. Compared with March Madness and Mr. Leno's joshing, an East Room news conference may be a little staid, but it will keep Mr. Obama in the klieg lights."

"All the varied attempts at carrying on the [national] dialogue have some wondering if whether the president is overexposed."

So what do you think? After casting your vote on the poll above this post, feel free to explain your answer.

Shocked at the Shock!

I found this video and just had to post it. It summarizes my comment (#5) from the previous post questioning the constitutionality of the 90% tax which passed the House yesterday. Rep. McCotter first lays out what really happened and he correctly identifies the source of the mess - the spendulous package wrecklessly passed last month. So please refer back to comment 5 on the previous post for some context before watching this video. If not, then here is some helpful info before watching this clip: a "bill of attainder" is a legislative act that singles out an individual or a small group and imposes a punishment on them without the benefits of a fair trial and is unconstitutional (see Article I Section 9).



We are now witnessing congressional and executive negligence, hypocrisy, and cover-ups at their worst. Are you surprised? This wonderful spendulous package was shoved down our throats with no meaningful debate, no meaningful compromises, no bipartisanship, no minority inclusion, and no time to even read the language (lots of broken promises in this sentence)! These are the kinds of things that happen.

Government gets angry over $160 million in AIG bonuses

I consider myself a fiscally responsible conservative democrat. I know that may sound strange but let me explain myself. I feel it is governments responsibility to provide a few basic things to help ensure a better life for all Americans. Infrastructure, military, regulation, education, and other things. I believe in progressive taxes and I believe those with more disposable income ought to pay more in taxes. That's just how I was raised and what I think is right. I know a lot of people disagree with me on that and that is fine. I believe it is the responsibility of government to help provide opportunity and help to those that need it. Food stamps for a single mom, or pell grants for poor college students, and so on. Ultimately what I would hope those kind of opportunities would lead to would be self-reliance and able to contribute back to the country. Take for example myself. I make under $10,000 a year, I can't afford health insurance, I can't afford to pay for school, I can barely make the payments I do have to make. But because of pell grants, medicaid, and other government help, I am able to focus right now and do well in school. I see it is the government making an investment in me, knowing that by my being educated and eventually becoming a physician I will pay back all the government ever gave to me and more, to go on and help the next person.

What I don't approve or agree with is wreckless spending, greed, and what I see as theft from the taxpayer. These past couple days have shown the bad side of what happens when you give $170 billion to a failing insurance company. If you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk. AIG has handed out $160 million in bonuses after posting a multi-billion dollar loss. How in the world does that make sense? I don't think this means we should have never bailed them out in the first place, that could've gotten extremely ugly had all these huge financial institutions started to fail. But what it does warrant is further regulation if one of these companies is taking taxpayer dollars.

And finally my last point. I have said before I am totally willing to point out hypocrisy and inconsistencies in my own party. A week after signing a $400 billion + spending bill loaded with earmarks and calling for an end to wasteful spending, now President Obama is claiming that "the buck stops here with me with AIG." Why didn't the buck stop there when millions, or should I say billions more taxpayer dollars were going to earmarks last week? It doesn't mean I hate or disapprove of our president, I just wish that some things were a little more consistent.

And finally I have to give a shout-out to President Bush. President Obama constantly attacked him all last year and pretty much the entire time he was president for decisions he made. Now the tables have turned and former President Bush, when asked about Obama's decisions so far, said "he deserves my silence." President Bush is a bigger man than I thought he was and he deserves some credit for taking the high road when I'm sure he's probably horrified at some of the decisions President Obama has made. So kudos to big W.

Obama to reverse Bush-era stem cell policy

I'm sticking with my sea-gull analogy. I still say it was good.

Barack Obama is delivering on a campaign promise to overturn George Bush's limits on stem cell research. For those of you who don't know what exactly what a stem cell is, it's a cell that's like a child, it doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. It can become any type of cell with the right conditions, a pancreas cell, liver cell, or even brain cell. The reason stem cell research is controversial is some stem cells are obtained from embryos, meaning a recently fertilized egg is destroyed to gain the stem cells. These usually come from fertility clinics, where they would have been thrown away anyways. President Bush made the claim he was protecting life. We all started out as stem cells and slowly (over a period of 9 months) started to divide with certain things that determined what cell would become what, usually determined by our DNA. The exciting thing about stem cells is that if you find out how to determine what that cell becomes, you can potentially cure many diseases, even paralysis. Because of political pressure or even executive limits, stem cells have largely been off limits. But now President Obama is reversing the decision and making federal funds available to support stem cell research. I checked the Church website and there is no official opionion of the Church on this matter.

While I have disagreed with President Obama on a couple issues, this is one where he has my total support. After learning about embryonic stem cells and the potential for the quality of life for millions of people to be significantly improved, the rewards far outweigh the negatives. Many people argue that an embryo is a life. I do not agree. I have a feeling some will disagree with me on this but I think the scriptures are on my side. In the Old Testament God clearly teaches that "For the life of the flesh is in the blood.." (Lev. 17:11 and Gen 9:4) The scriptures often teach that blood is necessary for life. An embryo first begins to have a heart beat at around 18-21 days, which most physiologists have assumed is when blood begins to flow inside the embryo, before this, it's just a collection of cells dividing. These embryos are harvested well before that time, and never even stand a chance at actually becoming a living person. But what they can do is significantly help us cure diseases like Parkinsons, Multiple Sclerosis, paralysis, even Alzheimers. Let me end this by asking you a question: if you were paralyzed, and there was a chance that you could regain the use of your limbs by breakthrough research on stem cells, would you be okay with it then? I know I would.