Why we "pick on" smokers with sin taxes: Smoking has a demonstrable effect on people's health and healthcare costs. Obesity also has a big effect on health, but the culprit isn't clear-cut. Do you "sin-tax" all fast food? What if you go to McDonalds and order a salad? What if you eat "reasonable" food purchased from your local grocery--perhaps some pasta and lean meat, you simply eat much too much of it? Who do you tax for obesity?

Smokers, you're just too clear-cut a target. Incidentally, this is why litigation by smokers against tobacco companies has been successful in a way litigation against fast food never will be. The cause and effect are pretty clear.

FYI, kiojn1 this was a truly bi-partisan bill, not a Democratic one.

Bush in Cleveland, July 10th: "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

-http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070710-6.html

Holy crap, how has this not gotten more attention?! It’s completely idiotic! Technically, I suppose anyone can just stroll into the emergency room—if they can take six hours off from work to wait there. And actually be treated (see the story of the woman who died untreated on a Los Angeles ER lobby floor, dismissed as a "complainer"*). And then pay the exorbitant cost of going to an emergency room without health insurance.

*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

P.S. RealName, still cracking up over "Money talks, crackbabies walk."

stevio, if kids are the problem, maybe kids can be the solution! Bonus points to anyone who gets the Simpsons reference.

MnKatz writes, “Very demonstrably alcohol costs billions of dollars to not only the health care system.” This is simply not true. While there is no healthfully beneficial amount of cigarette smoke, there are healthfully beneficial amounts of alcohol consumption. This isn’t about a moral high ground—it’s about clear cause and effect. Smoking has a clearly negative effect on our healthcare system. This is not to say I’d object to higher alcohol taxes, too. But cigarette taxes will be an easier sell and…

kiojn1 is on the right track with “I think it's a shame that the sponsors of this bill feel the need to use a sin tax to pay for a truly worthwhile program to which all citizens should be willing to contribute.” I agree that it is a shame. However, raising taxes across the board to fund this program simply will not pass under this closely divided Senate and under this administration. This bill was a truly bipartisan compromise by Senate Democrats and Republicans. It isn’t perfect, but it allows poor kids to get healthcare. If it’s a choice between no funding and sin tax funding, I choose sin tax funding.

I, too, wish our elected leaders had more political and moral courage. But right now, in this instance, I’m willing to play the hand I’m dealt in order to effect practical change that will have a direct effect on those who need it most.

Wow, talk about adding insult to injury. Or adding injury to insult to injury.

Maybe the people forced to live in tents after Hurricane Katrina while FEMA trailers sat unused in Arkansas will count their [mixed] blessings. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/13/katrina.trailers/index.html

Meanwhile, apparently some of those infamous unused FEMA trailers were to be sent to needy American Indian reservations. http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl062307khtrailersindians.8de0e51.html Hope this plan is now shelved. Haven't we d-cked over the American Indian enough?

Winkandanod, in defense of military families voting for Bush: for the longest time, voting Republican was a convenient shorthand for voting for the military. Republicans could reliably be counted upon to throw big bucks at the military (how much of this actually made into the hands of veterans and the actual troops is another matter). Liberals could be counted upon to have a certain mild distain for the military, viewing them as narrow-minded, warmongering, anti-intellectuals (I write this as someone with otherwise enlightened liberal friends who still express some very narrow-minded views about the military).

The Bush Administration has turned these convenient shorthand tricks on their head. Bush (having “served” in the Champagne Squadron in his youth) pushed the military into an unnecessary war with inadequate armor, extended deployments and has denied a basic cost of living pay increase. The Army Times is writing scathing editorials about a Republican administration while The Left marches in support of the troops.

Up is down, black is white. The shorthand doesn’t work in Bushworld.

In addition to the ways Bush has broken the army for generations to come, I also wonder if he’s broken the almost-guaranteed military vote for the Republican Party for years to come.

Kevin C, I am sitting at my desk cracking up.

The TSA's liquid restrictions are ridiculous--they're restrictive enough to inconvenience passengers and broad enough to provide no real security. It's the worst of both worlds.

I can appreciate what you are saying but, the shorthand worked in 2004 when George "party-boy" Bush and Dick "other priorites" Cheney tacitly approved of the swift-boating of John "silver star" Kerry.

Thanks for bringing up John Kerry, Winkandanod, because I think he perfectly demonstrates the problems with the shorthand in Bushworld. John Kerry? Oh, he’s just an effete, windsurfing, Massachusetts liberal. Who just happens to be a decorated war hero. Military families put their shorthand above the obvious facts.* It’s time military families stopped using the shorthand.

*That and I think there was a reluctance to change leaders in the middle of a war.

Herself writes, “But then, there are the careerists, who think they are balancing career and family, but are actually screwing the kids for a buck.”

Actually, they might just be screwing the kids for personal fulfillment, not just for a buck.