Dr. Jim Blaine, a Springfield physician advocating for a hike in tobacco taxes to fund healthcare programs, is urging political candidates to stay neutral on the controversial ballot initiative.
Blaine made his comments during a Greene County Medical Society Candidate Forum Tuesday evening. He acknowledged that it probably wouldn't be a politically popular position to come out for a new tax. But Blaine pleaded with local candidates not come out publicly against it.
"It may not be politically prudent for you to support . . . Say something neutral, like 'let the people decide,'" Blaine said.
After that advice, just one candidate dared to speak about the issue.
It was Libertarian candidate Keith Rodgers, who is running in the #134th legislative district.
"My mission is to get government out of government. The tobacco tax . . . not a good idea," Rodgers said.
Blaine didn't take long to respond to Rodgers, railing off statistics of why the tax will stop people from ever taking up smoking and therefore, save thousands of lives.
"We'd be massively richer if everyone quit smoking . . . It would save 10,000 lives," Blaine said. "A male smoker dies 13 years sooner, a female dies 14 years sooner, and we have the second lowest tax in the nation."
5 comments:
I didn't much appreciate the doctors' response, to be frank about it. I'm not an expert on anything, that's a given, but I'm standing by what I *do* know: Raising taxes and expanding government will not solve anything. If it did, we'd have a lot less problems, wouldn't we?
If this tax passed, and everyone quit using tobacco the next day, there would just be another tax proposal to make up for the shortfall. The beast must feed. The policy wonks and bureaucrats must be paid. The regulators of every facet of our lives must micromanage our daily existence.
I realize my response at the forum must've sounded amateurish, as I'm not a career politician or an accomplished public speaker, but by God there's nothing that rubs against my grain more than those who think government is some sort of cure-all ointment. It must be used SPARINGLY. That's what the Founders envisioned, after all, and that's why they gave us the template for a Republic. They'd soil themselves if they saw what we've turned it into since their passing.
And you can quote me on that.
This is so much easier to type than to say in front of a crowd:
I not only oppose the tobacco tax, I oppose ALL tax increases, and if elected I will never vote to heap on the burden we taxpayers already carry.
I also will not support any growth of government, unless there is a corresponding DECREASE in the size and scope of same. Pass a new law, get rid of at least one old law.
We need SOME government, and SOME taxation, but we do not need huge, steaming piles of both to run our country. We don't need to be micromanaged. We're not a nation of children.
Amen Libby, Preach it to the fat cat republocrats. That why we'll never win. They are addicted to government and cannot bare the pain of doing it themselves. Taxes are their way of sucking every ounce of life from us. We can't even pass a house to our kids anymore becaue the republocrats want such a huge share of our hard work. Imagine all the money the people would have in their pocket if the LP and the CP had the power.
That's why we're shut out of most debates, Chris. Candidate forums are one thing, and thankfully we do get invited to those (terrifying though they may be to the non-professional), but until we start seeing non-RepubliCrat candidates on nationally-televised (or local) debates, we're going to continue to be relegated pretty much to the sidelines.
Unless one of us winds up "stealing" enough votes (as if votes are property), and we wind up with the "spoiler" tag. Well, good. Needs to happen a LOT more often.
It's hard to be upbeat when you look at how the Brand X parties run our country. One has social conservatives who think it's a good idea to regulate personal, consenting-adult behavior, and the other likes the idea of regulating "offensive" speech. (Hey, if we just pass a few more laws, we can ALL be criminals!) One pays lip service to limited government, and the other wants lots and lots of government and socialized health care. And both use the IRS tax code to punish and/or reward certain groups. (Democrat Charlie Rangel insinuated that all tax cuts would be "on the table" if his party gains the majority. Meaning: ALL tax cuts, not just those "for the rich". He needs to learn that we can NEVER tax our way into prosperity. Socialist-minded power-mongers never learn that lesson, though.)
I'm a cynic. I'd rather NOT be cynical. I'd rather see the two major parties get back to their roots and not be hell-bent on playing "gotcha" games and mudslinging each other while they jockey for power, power being the overriding concern in their lives.
How to fix it:
Americans deserve maximum personal and economic freedom, while acknowledging they must take responsibility for negative actions which cause direct harm or fraud to another. Government needs to be minimalist in scope and size, not "all things to all people" nanny-state sized. The phrase "general welfare" in the Constitution should never be translated as "welfare for able-bodied people". And the people should *never* fear the government; rather, the government should fear the people. The former brings tyranny, the latter brings liberty.
That, however, is a foreign concept to many of our citizens. "But who will take care of me?" Well, if we MUST have a social safety net, it should be last-resort, bare-boned, and not run by bureaucrats in a centralized location - "welfare" should be run by the states, not from Washington D.C.
George Washington said, in times of peace, 90% of government should come from the states. There's no logical reason for 90% of government to come from the bureaucracy-laden executive branch, even in times of war and unrest.
Post a Comment