Big Business Big Gov. Strange Bed Fellows
 

Henry Waxman is the original sponsor of HR 1108, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This is a bill which would give the FDA regulatory control over tobacco products. On the surface - you would think that there is nothing unusual about a Democrat sponsoring legislation to enhance regulatory control over a "deadly" product. But in this case the nations largest tobacco company supports the legislation and the head of the FDA does not. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs Stated the following during a Congressional hearing on the subject:

http://www.fda.gov/ola/2007/tobacco100307.html

Phillip Morris had the following to say:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=84304

There have been topics on TFP concerning regulation, free markets, competition etc. Here we have a clear example of either the potential for unintended consequences or politics at its worse where those pretending to support the health and well being of people are actually in bed with "big business". I think its the latter.

Just to be clear on why Phillip Morris would support this - it is because the restrictions the bill would place on new tobacco products being introduced into the market and advertised or existing products being advertised will give Phillip Morris a virtual lock on their current US market share. No competition. Phillip Morris recently separated its international and domestic tobacco companies. The international company (ticker: PM) is positioned for growth and the domestic company (ticker: MO) currently has a dividend yield of over 5% and they anticipate buying back billions of dollars of stock using cash flow. This legislation will virtually lock in their current US market share giving the company a very measurable and predictable cash flow for decades to come..

You may think the FDA could ban tobacco products all together because of the health risks, right? Well think again, because the bill reserves that authority to Congress regardless of what the FDA thinks.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...8&congress=110

I guess Congress doesn't want to risk the loss of billions in tobacco tax revenues overnight and hey - whats wrong with a little nicotine between friends. the next time you read a post about Bush and oil/defense/Haliburton/etc., think about the 189 Democratic co-sponsors of this bill.

P.s. - I am going to buy a few more shares of MO. I love this country.

I'm still not sure if smoking should be under the jurisdiction of the FDA. It's not a food, and it's really not a drug (in that a drug is taken to benefit the health of the user).

I feel dirty, but thats exactly what I thought while reading this.

We discussed this bill pretty thoroughly in Up in Smoke.

My position hasnt changed.

ace...when mentioning Phillip Morris' support, you neglected to mention the fact that the bill is also supported by over 600 national/state/local organizations, including every major national health related organization.

Compromises were made.......so its not a perfect bill.....so what....it is addressing a national health issue...you have to start somewhere.

Before focusing any further inflammatory charges solely on Waxman and the 189 Dem co-sponosrs (or Kennedy, the lead sponsor on the Senate version), you should know that a similar bill introduced by Repub Senator Dewine in 2004 passed by UNANIMOUS consent in the Republican Senate, only to be stalled in the House.

If you really want to make it partisan....follow the money and which party received more tobacco money over the last 20 years:

Total tobacco industry contributions - nearly $60 million
26% to Democrats and 74% to Republicans

http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...ind=A02&type=P

I never read the thread you referenced above. Regardless, if my view on this issue is here or in the other thread, after researching the issue I came to my own conclusions and you can read my views.

I did not neglect to mention the full amount of support for the bill, it simply is not relevant to my view and certainly doesn't change the fact that Phillip Morris will be the primary benefactor of this legislation with a virtual lock on the US tobacco market - even more so than the one they currently have. If you are disputing that supposition, then we have something to discuss. If I am wrong, I might suffer financial consequences - so I am very interested in the views of others on this topic. I think investing in Phillip Morris if this legislation passes would be like investing in a 30 year AAA rated corporate bond paying over 5% with the potential for capital appreciation and increasing dividend payments.

I disagree. I don't think good starting points are when you compromise your principles. If I thought smoking was as harmful to society as some say it is, I could not support it being legal. If I worked at the FDA with the following mission:

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html

I could not support smoking being legal.


I understand your point here, but it does not have any impact on the points I have made.

Why feel dirty for loving this country?:thumbsup:

Science says it is a drug. Vernacular disagrees. In my opinion, science wins.

drug: a substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body

To respond to the OP... Uh, yeah. Corporate interests have a stranglehold on our government and our culture. I am starting to think that this is an unavoidable consequence of our worship of the "free market" (or at least the variation thereof which we have implemented). By making the market and economics the ultimate arbiter, you sort of place yourself in the position of being a whore.

Whores at least get paid, better than being a slave which is the alternative if you want to use that type of analogy :thumbsup:

Then the FDA should ban it completely. It's clearly a harmful drug with absolutely no benefits.

Yeah, but the ho doesn't tell the pimp what to do.

http://www.avataration.com/MSN-Avatars/pimpslap.jpg
*Pimp slap*

Fair enough. I'll see if I can dig up that other thread about smoking. :thumbsup:

But to be serious, this type of legislation is not a free market consequence but just the opposite. It is an erosion of the free market due to government regulation which favors one company over all others, which is closer to fascism.

Don't forget that not everyone is down with a free market, Ustwo, at least not completely.

Fascism would be capital punishment for the sale or use of cigarettes.

I don't see how that would be fascism thats just a possibility under any authoritarian government edict.

If anything such simple, and unhealthy pleasures would be encouraged by the governments in such situations.

I'd agree with that assessment if I thought that congressmen were writing these bills using their own judgment. Maybe I'm cynical, but I suspect that PM had something to do with the form this bill takes.

I dont have any doubt that PM influenced the bill to a greater extent than the public health organizations that also support it.

PM contributes to Congressional candidates through its PAC; public health organizations dont. Thats the dark side of US politics....money is often more influential than the public health or the public good. That should come as no surprise.

I also wouldnt be surprised if they (PM, the anti-smoking groups and the Congressional staff bill righters) met privately and crafted mutually acceptable provisions for the bill.

But the fact remains, the bill (initially proposed 4 years ago) is the first meaningful attempt to regulate tobacco products beyond the limited labeling and advertising restrictions enacted in the 70s.

For me, thats a good thing...even if PM benefits at the expense of other producers. I suspect that is why every major national public health organization supports it as well.

I dont agree that the public health organizations compromised their principles....they accepted the political reality in order to get "half a loaf" instead of none. Thats the real world of politics as opposed to the "Disney" version you often allude to.

And I wont be buying PM stock.

I find it unfortunate that what is apparently in large part engineered by the worlds largest tobacco seller for its own benefit is considered good legislation because its a 'start'.

While perhaps some good may come of it, this sort of corporate favoritism so clearly displayed is just the sort of government I thought the democrats were elected to stamp out.

While claims of this level of collusion have been flowing from their lips for the last 7 years, only here does it seem to be laid bare.

Well done congress well done, a generation of young voters have never seen a democrat run congress in action, now they will learn what I learned growing up in the 1980s.

Ustwo..you and ace obviously believe the bill benefits PM (and the large existing tobacco companies) more than it the benefits the public health. I understand that, I just dont agree with it.

I come down on the other side (with the 600+ national organizations), that the benefits to the public health are greater...and that the lesser benefits to the industry are a trade-off that had to be made in order to get a bill that could gain bipartisan support.

The generation of young voters can decide for themselves.

I hope those young voters dont judge either party in a vacuum when considering the issue of corporate favoritism...and that they also consider bills like:

the Dem FISA reform bill that removes corporate favoritism to the large telecomms (re: retroactive immunity) in the Repub bill

the 08 Dem energy bill that removed the corporate favoritism to Exxon/Mobile (and friends) at the expense of small, start-up alternative energy companies in the 05 Repub energy bill

the 07 Dem contracting reform bill that addressed favoritism in government contracting that benefited companies like Haliburton to the detriment of smaller companies wanting to compete for government contracts

Well done indeed Mr. Ustwo!

And to think that they still haven't used up their first 100 hours to (as Nancy Pelosi stated) "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule? Amazing!

Let's take a peek at the aggressive game plan of this brash new (well not so new) maverick congress:
Look out America! The "people's mandate" is here and they mean (meant?) business ...at least all the way up to actually being elected.

Good thing they still have those "first 100 hours" to get started on these bold measures or wrap up the half-assed boiled down versions in time to take a vacation. Hopefully they'll have time to delay emergency troop funding, line emergency bills with patriotic pork "like a veto magnet", take fact-finding trips, redecorate offices, take breaks instead of voting, meet with leaders of terrorist nations, and score the best approval rating ever!

Yes, well done indeed Mr. Ustwo!

... Go Peoples Mandate! Phillip Morris does have a friend in Congress.

So you still want to pretend there have been no accomplishments in the last year:

FISA reform, FOIA reform, contracting reform, lobbying/ethics reform, US attorney hiring reform, VA reform, FEMA reform.

Renewal of SCHIP, implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations, new education and economic competitiveness initiatives, expansion of student loan programs, investments in renewable energy and energy conservation...

You ignored it in another recent thread so I assume you will ignore it here and instead continue with your obsession with redocorating :thumbsup:

I don't know dc: essentially, what you're saying is that the health organizations, the tobacco companies, and the guys the tobacco companies are paying off got together and found a compromise that benefits the tobacco companies. Yes, I know that our Congresspeople do more than get payed off, and I'm sure that it's a tough job...but in this type of context, the only real difficulty I see for the Congressperson - the only reason they have to give concessions to the tobacco companies - is because if they don't, their money flow will be cut off. Unless you're stipulating that these companies will start kneecapping people, then I see this as a classic sense of one hand washing the other, corporate politics.

I am saying they crafted a bill that is likely to get enough votes to ensure passage and benefits the public health. Its virtually the same bill that the Republican Senate passed unanimously in 2004 only to be stalled in the Republican House.

Its not the best bill to regulate tobacco, but "politics makes strange bedfellows" and IMO, the trade-off is acceptable in order to take that long overdue and necessary first step.

dc: 'get enough votes to ensure passage" is the heart of this...i don't really care that much about the whole dem vs. repub bit, and i gotta shower to get off for work...but that's the part that bothers me.

pig....in some respects, without the corporate interests, its much like the gun control issue in the 90s.

Congress would never have been able to enact the Brady bill or any meaningful gun control legislation without the support of the NRA and its hold over many Republican members of Congress.

Concessions were made by the gun control advocates, NRA got some its pet provisions included (gun show loophole) or other provisions removed, and the bill became law with bi-partisan support.

so how did this thread about the tobacco bill spill over into a space of conservative fantasizing about the early phase of an administration that has not yet happened? it's like you comrades are practicing the art of remainingin opposition. funny stuff.

on the general question: i don't know where on earth anyone got the impression that the american state and the corporate sector are not intimately intertwined, like entirely, like wholesale--what distinguishes republicans and democrats primarily is which factions within the corporate sector they work with. republicans in the main like one sector of defense contractors; democrats another. republicans in the main talk about free markets while practicing a military keynesian approach to economic management; democrats talk more about comprehesive approaches to state interaction with the economy. neither republicans or democrats in fact operationalise "free markets" anywhere, ever. to think in terms of "free markets" is to confuse 18th century political economy textbooks with reality--to think in terms of "free markets" really means you don't understand the first thing about contemporary capitalism--you know, the result of the history of capitalism since around the 1870s. "free markets" are nice nietzchean fantasies, and they function on small scales in limited ways--within overall legal contexts that are state creations. markets and state are intertwined in a wholesale fashion--if you think about it, the only real distinction between republican and democrat approaches is aesthetic--whether you want to see the regulatory functions or not--and ethical--whether you think it's ok for the population which does not hold capital to suffer the consequences of volatility in the economic sphere--and so tactical.

it's pretty straightforward in a framework that looks at actual history and actual conditions rather than at market metaphysics.



the american agricultural sector is extremely heavily subsidized by the state. tobacco farmers, because they farm, receive these subsidies. presumably there was once a space where people ate tobacco.

o yeah---i smoke still---as mark twain said quitting is the easiest thing in the world to do, ive done it hundreds of times.
i support the bill.

Phillip Morris has many friends in Congress...far more Republican than Democrat

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summ...0000067&type=P

Donor Profile: Altria Group (formerly Phillip Morris)

In this case, they played both sides...they won and public health won.

We don't want to feel ignored now, do we?
The recent redecorating of the House dining facility and an initial fixation in redecorating the congressional offices during those critical first 100 hours of which were delayed, stretched, extended, redefined, hardly or never accomplished. That redecorating. Not to say that no other congress hasn't redecorated. But in light of the great sense of urgency touted by the new/not-so-new/current congress, it seems that the momentum never really took hold on anything substantial. The few measures you mention are hardly ground breaking. The phrases "all talk" or "say anything to get elected" come to mind.

You seem to ignored all the accomplishments (or "non") I mentioned in my previous posts, how say you? The bigger issue is ... how long have these fine "leaders" been in congress? Is this the best work of the "peoples mandate"?

I understand the sentiment "now" of championing low expectations so not to feel used or disappointed ... sort of like conservatives realizing George Bush really isn't a conservative :lol: ...still slappin' the knee on that one. Congress did set this goal of the 100 hours "people's mandate" which essentially turned out to be a bait-and-switch to get elected and a joke on their supporters.

Note: I'm not giving the Republicans any slack on their performance either. They are all the people's representatives.

Congressional Report Card - a big fat "F"!

Sorry to have gotten so far off topic. This should be taken somewhere else.

dc_dux ... perhaps start a new thread about the successes of the first 100 hours of congress and the "people's mandate"?

otto--how is this "people's mandate" business any different from republicans talking about "americans"?

aren't you just addressing a matter of rhetoric, the word that is used to address a constituency? you can't possibly not see this for what it is...o course the terminology has resonances (that's what makes it rhetoric)---puts you in a position kinda like the 1820s right watching the jacksonian thing happen--that would make the republicans the defenders of a narrow elite and the democrats the populists.

well, maybe it does make some sense that you'd be a bit bent.
the right has run the show in terms of rhetoric for a while now.
now maybe you folks are loosing that too.

funny how these things turn on their heads and back again.

I believe I said Congress, which implies "Congress". Political parties were not mentioned. I'm an equal opportunity critic of Congress.

A more recent comparison would be the '94 Republican Contract with America, which accomplished few its initiatives in its first year.

Hoping to duplicate the electoral success of the Contract with America, Democrats ran on a platform of "Six for '06." As of late summer, two of the items--9/11 reforms and an increase in the minimum wage--had become law, while Bush had vetoed funding for stem-cell research. Proposals to reduce subsidies for oil companies and expand Pell grants remain tied up in conference committees (note: enacted later in the year); a bill to fix Medicare's prescription-drug problem has stalled in the Senate. Still, the GOP passed only two of the 11 Contract with America items in its first year back in charge.

One man's Congressional report card

Now back to the issue at the heart of the OP....big business/big government bedfellows!

ace, Ustwo and otto:

I'm curious why you dont have problems with these big business/big government bed fellows:

Exxon/Mobil et al getting $billions in tax benefits in the Republican 05 energy bill at the expense of supporting small, start-up alternative energy development companies.

Verizon, Bell South et al getting retroactive immunity for assisting in spying on Americans in the Republican FISA bill.

But you have problems with Phillip Morris getting benefits from this bill.

IMO, the benefits to those companies in those bills had a far greater negative impact on the public good than the benefits to Phillip Morris in this bill.

The newly spun off international unit of Phillip Morris (or Altria the new company name), announced its earnings this morning, a 29% increase in net profits from a year ago. Shareholders of Phillip Morris before the spin-off received one share of PM and one share of MO for each share of Phillip Morris that they owned prior to the spin-off. The primary reason for the spin off was to protect the international company from US regulations and litigation exposure releasing the true value of the international unit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...?mod=wsjcrmain

MO, the domestic company will release earnings Thursday. They have already made their $4 billion annual master settlement payment on 4/15/2008.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...?mod=wsjcrmain

In 2007 they paid about $36 billion in excise taxes (combined international and domestic) and about $4 billion in income taxes.

Some argue that the States are not adequately spending settlement money on public health.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/

No matter how you look at it, things are looking good for our largest tobacco company. I just find it ironic that some of us who are highly critical of big business, rich getting richer, Republicans being greedy, Haliburton, etc, etc. are perfectly willing to sellout their principles as long as a company like Phillip Morris is willing to fund government spending in exchange for protected status - even if the product as they would say, "kills".

They want to be regulated because regulation is protection. Companies that have a constituency in the government tend to have their voices heard. The bureaucracies protect their own. A bureaucrat needs to protect the entity s/he is regulating or s/he's out of a job. PM understands that. The tobacco companies' situation had gotten to the point that they need regulation to survive, or at least to avoid having to drown in litigation.

That's my objection to state-lovers - there are always unintended consequences.

This is the commonly held reason given for PM's support of the bill...and I agree.

And even with the unintended consequences, for the most part, the bill still begins to meet the goals of the public health community.

I still dont see the sellout. I would describe more as a trade-off...such is politics. (The FISA bill with retroactive immunity for the telecomms was a sellout - no public good at all comes out of that concession.).

There are a few truisms that can be taken from Phillip Morris situation and generally applied to other situations like the FISA bill with retroactive immunity for telecoms.

1) On a macro level over the long-term corporations will pass increased costs to consumers and maintain a fair profit margin commiserate with market risk as long as there is demand for their product.

2) When competition is restricted profit margins will grow and become excessive relative to market risk.

3) Corporations will cooperate with government to restrict competition.


In the case of Phillip Morris smoking litigation and settlement costs were passed on to consumers. If there is litigation against telecoms for cooperating with the Bush administration those costs will be passed on to consumers. In the case of the telecom industry in this country compared to some Asian and European nations we are behind. Excessive litigation against telecoms will require them to set aside billions of dollars for settlements and incur hundreds of millions in legal costs. This redirection of capital will put our nation further behind in the telecom industry compared to some other countries. The only true winners will be trial attorneys. Consumers will lose because of increased cost and less innovation.

In the case of Phillip Morris, they cooperated with government to restrict competition to protect market share. In the case of the telecom industry, market entry is already greatly restricted. If the companies that cooperated with government by releasing communication records are put at financial risk where survival is at question, competition in the telecom industry will be reduced. Profit margins of the remaining companies will go up, potentially becoming excessive relative to market risk. The winners here will be investors, the rich will get richer.

In the case of Phillip Morris, they negotiated settlements with government. Individuals actually damaged did not benefit. The settlements were a in reality a tax increase on the company and on the industry. A form of misdirection on the part of our government. In the FISA situation Bush is stating clearly that government and his Administration is responsible for any violation of the FISA law and that the Telecoms acted in good faith. This form of honesty is refreshing in my opinion.

LOL....Ok, if you say so, Ace.

You can continue to characterize support of this bill as a "sellout" of one's principles and I will respectfully disagree.

There is nothing more to be said.

You don't say. You know this reminds me of a graph I saw a few days ago. Ah here it is....
Lawyers/Law Firms:
Long-Term Contribution Trends
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...ind=K01&type=P

Ustwo....I understand how trial lawyers may benefit if the telecomms are not given retroactive immunity for their willfull illegal actions of assisting the administation in spying on American citizens without a warrant.

Are you suggesting that trial lawyers will benefit from this bill to regulate tobacco?

Perhaps you can elaborate.

I'm suggesting the 100's of millions given by the trial lawyers to the democrats is something to look at as compared to the 10's of millions you are tossing about in relation to tobacco money, which just so happens to be in red states to start with local to them.

Your party is owned by the lawyers and unions, we don't need to pretend about that do we?

As such any legislation which opens the doors for massive legal action sponsored by the democrats is tainted and suspect to me, such as with Bush pushing for telcom immunity. The senate passed it from what I gather but the house democrats won't. I don't think its because they feel people need to sue their telephone company, but to give back some of those 100's of millions to the people who really make money in these giant class action suits.

Sorry....but I am still confused.

How will this bill to authorize the FDA to implement greater regulatory control over tobacco result in "massive legal action"?

this is such a myopic way to understand regulation, it's dizzying.
what is required for ace or ustwo's position to be coherent is that you see regulation as an end in itself carried out in the interest of the technicians who fashion the regulation. which means that you exclude up front anything and everything that could make of regulation something coherent--you even exclude the end=point. i don't understand--maybe it's something that happens in conservativeland to normalize the way of "thinking" that has resulted in the iraq war--you know, whaddya mean incoherent, this is a way of thinking across the board.

in the context of any negociated process, there are going to be trade-offs--it's what negociation is about--i don't see anything particular problematic in this particular situation--obviously pm supports this because if they don't, they are concerned about more draconian regulation against tobacco further down the road. obviously it is in the interests of other organizations who support such regulation to have something rather than nothing to show for their efforts. obviously it is in the interest of congress to appear to be operating in a direction that distinguishes it to some extent as an actor or arbitor. all this requires is that you think in a vague way about the process itself--but if you're going to claim that this is somehow about trial lawyers alone, you can't even do that: no wonder ace and ustwo oppose regulation in principle--they have views of it that MAKE regulation incoherent, and so they see only incoherence in it.

it's mind-boggling, really, that this sort of construct has any purchase with anyone.

For the record I don't think I ever used the term "sellout". As you know, because I stated this several times, people will do what is in their best interest ( I don't make moral judgment, it is what it is - its the nature of life) . I don't consider that "selling out". What I have a problem with is: pretense. If you need a word to characterize this issue that is it - "pretense". If you disagree, I understand. If you don't "see" it ("it" being the logical basis that could lead one to the conclusions I have drawn) I think some things I will not state.

For the record:
Not that it matters, but I found it personally offensive for you to question the principles of persons here who support this bill.

Lets just leave it at that :)

I don't try to explain the impact of regulation, all I have done was to give an example of what happens when regulation restrict competition.

If the FDA has regulatory control over the tobacco industry what will actually change? You must answer that question thoroughly to understand how the argument is coherent. If you don't take the time to do that, I certainly understand your problem with the argument.

Or, Phillip Morris made moves to compartmentalize market risks. Hence they spun-off Kraft, and they spun-off their international tobacco company. The domestic company is now set up to assume no unpredictable market risk. Congress has provided the protection, the FDA can not even require the elemination of nicotine in cigaretts.

Why not specify those things you state and believe are obvious?

You also make a "straw man argument" by saying "about trial lawyers alone". Much has been written here, that is not about trial lawyers. Just like DC needs a single word to summarize a complex topic, seems you need a singular point to base your dispute on.

it's mind-boggling, really, that this sort of construct has any purchase with anyone.[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected.

Why is it offensive to question principles? I question my principles every time I am confronted with a major decision. I ask myself if the actions I am planning on taking are consistent with my principles? I ask myself what is it that I truly believe? Will the consequences of my actions be consistent with my principles?Are my principles correct? Has acting on my principles been good? Can I act in a manner more consistent with my principles?

If you or others communicate your priciples to me, I will ask those same questions and expect others will do the same with me. I my view there is nothing "offensive" with that.

P.S. You are correct this does not matter. As we dive into more and more trivia as it relates to the information in this thread, i think the value is totally lost. I will go back to non-fact based "drive-by" posts in the future.

(voluntary recall of post by author ...it was a cheap shot and counter-productive)

first off i reacted to post 35 and when i was writing my response, i blurred ustwo and ace into each other. sorry ace. my bad.

yours is a more interesting argument, but i don't agree with its premises---dc is already engaged with you about some of the problems, so i'll defer to him.

more generally--and just to say this before i bow out of the thread--the way in which you interpret particular situations is informed entirely by the general approach you adopt--that's what conditions relevance of information and weight amongst relevant information or variables. that's why i posted what i posted in the way i posted it--i'm less interested personally in the analysis of this particular bill than i am in the ways that analysis is arrived at. call it a quirk.

roachboy, everyone's interpretation of particular situations is informed by the general approach they adopt, and that's what conditions relevance of information and weight amongst relevant information or variables. It's not unique to ace. May I be so bold as to suggest that you do it too? I know I do, which is why I try to rethink premises every now and again. I have been known on occasion to be wrong, which I don't like, so I try to avoid it by preventive re-education.

loquitor--o i know i approach most things from a set of assumptions--but i try to be flexible with them. there are some axiomatic areas i am less flexible about--like the idea that one can separate the economic from other aspects of social reality in any coherent way.

roachboy is much more rigid than i am about this sort of stuff---i position roachboy as a kind of meta-player in these games for the most part. partly i do it because i think that debate is more interesting if played at the meta-level, so it's about approach as much as what approach generates. i've been consistent about that much--even though it generates some static (what game are we playing?) and despite the occasional foray into donnybrooks.

politically, i'm less easy to pin than roachboy is--probably more radical than he is.
sometimes i get sick of roachboy....he's a product of the format we swim around in, and the format is itself kinda restrictive.

that why he's a fiction, you see.

Truth be told, I am far less radical than dux. It comes from years as a lobbyist/political advocate for non-partisan public interest organizations where pragmatism is a requirement to best accomplish the goals of the organization. Often that means demonstrating a willingness to propose and accept compromises and make trade-offs if it will lead to some level of success.

The irony is that demonstrating that pragmatism here and supporting a bill that was initially proposed by Republicans in '04 because I believe it benefits public health, despite the trade-offs for PM, brought out the wrath of the Repubs!

I have never considered it selling out my principles to work for a non-partisan public interest organization that may not be as liberal as I am personally but shares many common goals and values. In fact, it helped me become more pragmatic.

Selling out my principles would be to work for a private trade association like the Tobacco Institute with which I have very few, if any, shared goals and values....despite the much higher pay!

But Ustwo probably still considers me a "democratic operative"...thats ok, I dont mind the label.

Heh........ well then I should break this cycle by saying that what I post generally is my real opinion (except when I do a devil's advocate sort of thing or role-playing or a Socratic thing).

Like loquitur, I have few (very few) strong opinions, and am fairly flexible on the things I don't feel strongly about. I also believe very strongly in "live and let live," which is why I object when someone tells me that those who think differently from him/her are morally stunted or contemptible.

I am what I am and thats all that I am.

Hey DC checked your pension/retirement plan, trust funds, mutual funds, or even the donor lists of those public interest organizations for stock, profits, or donations from those Tobacco Institute types with whom you have no shared goals and values? Of course you have, sorry that I even asked.

ace.....I select my stocks and mutual funds personally, with assistance from my financial adviser. He knows what I am looking for. The mutual funds are all "socially responsible" and or "green" funds that exclude companies that make weapons, tobacco and other similar or related companies. On the plus side, they focus on companies that have a demonstrated environmental policy, respect for human rights, corporations that have a positive record of community relations and other factors.

In my retirement plan, the mutual funds I have selected are also "social choice" funds....and they, along with the rest of the mix (govt securities and munis...) have done exceedingly well over the last 20+ years and should enable me to retire early, if I choose.

I cant say for certain that they dont include some "dirty" or "socially irresponsible" businesses, but I tried the best I can.

I will leave the willful and knowing investing in death and human (and environmental) degradation to you and others if that is the choice you want to make.

Ouch! But it gives me permission to respond.

So, you don't have a problem with the fact that government programs outside of the medical issues related to smoking and smoking related settlements are dependent on the financial well being of companies like Phillip Morris? Seems like anyone with an interest in the government spending supported by tobacco above the costs to government of tobacco has an interest in tobacco and perhaps share a few common goals. I guess that is another one of those "compromises" one has to make, right?

ace...in an ideal world, I would say ban tobacco products and fuck the producers.

But we dont live in that world. It is unrealistic to ban cigarettes....too many people are dependent or addicted and it would only create a bootleg or underground market, producing products of dubious quality (think grain alcohol in the days of prohibition) and the loss of significant tax revenue. So, as long as we, as a society, are stuck with cigarettes, I dont have a problem with a dependency on the financial well-being of the current producers

I simply want to see regulations that hold cigarette makers more accountable for the quality of their product, (including the nicotine content), honesty in marketing (ie no more bullshit that "light" cigarettes are less harmful) and greater reporting of their internal (non-competitive trade secrets) medical studies that they withheld or lied about for years.

I'm done with this one.

I know the truth hurts. A willingness to face reality is a commendable trait, facing reality and then "turning tail" is not.

Your view of "compromise" is like a neighborhood church taking donations from the neighborhood drug dealer. Just like the church you think you can do good things with the money and you try to ignore where the money comes from. Then like the church you want to preach to others about morality, in your case you want to tell me . And you say you don't "see" it.

If you were my friend I would sit down with you and say "Stop".

"Stop" the pretense, you are not kidding anyone. If you don't see the flaws in your position, you have to be the only one.

"Stop" being a victim of circumstance. Stand up for what you believe in. I heard that having balls is the new black. You do not have to compromise on issues or on those things that are important to you.

"Stop" thinking that "things" are your enemy. Phillip Morris is a "thing". Government can tax/regulate or whatever, Phillip Morris out of business. People make the choice to smoke or not smoke and as long as there is demand smoking products will be supplied. Energy is better spent on the demand issue.

"Stop" the denial. Everyone knows that the tobacco industry is good for government revenues. Government wants the industry to do well enough for the billions settled on and now needed to supplement budgets. And on top of that many like you want the tobacco industry to help fund health care for children. Everyone knows these costs are passed on to consumers. Everyone knows that the poor disproportionately spend more on smoking than other wealth classes.

"Stop" thinking you have all the answers. There are unintended consequence to most acts. No one person can foresee them all. Use a cycle of feedback so when confronted with future problems the same mistakes are not made over and over, i.e. FISA. Liberal are on a path with FISA that wont turnout the way you think. Use the point of view of others to add value to your views rather than immediately dismissing the views of others.

Since you are "done" you may never read this, but if you do try not to respond. Your response will be emotional. Facing reality is tough, best of luck.

the claim that you implicitly make to monopolize "reality" is pretty funny stuff, ace. your pollyanna world of market relations, understood to the exclusion of all other factors, just makes me laugh, particularly when you get arrogant about the kinds of claims that this market metaphysics justifies.

"add value to your views" indeed.

Being a libertarian in social matters allows me to really get a kick out of this debate.

I don't worry about people killing themselves smoking. I think its their right to do something harmful to themselves.

I don't have moral questions about helping out the worlds largest tobacco company in order to use some of the profit for my pet social programs and to get a feel good buzz that amounts to nothing changing in the status quo.

I don't feel bad if I buy stock in PM.

My conscience is clean.

It vaguely reminds me of the 'I think abortion is wrong but I support a womans right to choose.'

I'm glad I don't have to morally balance something I think is morally wrong and choice, its got to be difficult.

Tobacco companies are evil and sell poison to people but we will help one out for market dominance so we can feel good about a baby step to some sort of regulation.

Either the thought process is just completely alien, where you can compartmentalize your logic, or its talking out of both sides of their mouths. I think I know the answer.

ace...wow....talk about an emotional post....lol

We simply have a different outlook on life and politics...its no big deal.

I never said I am right and you are wrong nor did I ever claim that I have all the answers.

But if you were my friend, I would say:

http://www.lucasalexander.dk/images/...ing-sizdow.jpg

Ustwo....my conscience is clean is well.

I am sure there are a few areas in my life where I am in complete and total denial of reality. The first step for me is to openly acknowledge that. I know I have biases. I know I have acted in manners inconsistent with my stated values and principles. I know I have many flaws. I know I can not possibly see all sides of an issue. I don't try to monopolize "reality", I do make attempts at humor and I am happy to know you found some in my post. Personally the - having balls is the new black - is my favorite. Actually that is one thing I like about Hilary Clinton, she will hunt, fish, drink shots, play football and chew tobacco with the best of them - but that goes of your point.

My market view is actually more complicated than how I post things here. Generally, I don't think people can get to high level discussions until there is agreement on certain truisms. Trying to defend a truism has proven very difficult for me. If I have an argument on the basis that over time "business" will earn profits commensurate with market risk and pass increased costs on to consumers, how can I clearly articulate that argument without trying to explain something that is to me at the simplest of concepts. Hence the explanations come across simplistically. Yet some here will argue all day long on that issue, and we never get to the next level. In this thread for example, we could have taken it in many directions, but what has the focus been? Trivial stuff in my opinion.

Being arrogant is one of my biggest (well second biggest:thumbsup: ) attributes. I know it is a problem, and I have warned people about it. My arrogance often won't let me walk away, when everything else is telling me I should. I know I should have dropped this issue along time ago, but I couldn't. Being as arrogant as I am, to admit weakness take a lot of effort. What I have found when I write it, I can then control it.

Thanks for your help.

I hope proponents of increasing tax rates in general and specifically using cigarette taxes to fund children's health care take note of the information contained in a WSJ editorial appearing in today's edition.

Cigarette Tax Burnout - WSJ.com

For those interested, I would offer a different perspective from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

Factsheets Index

Most notably

Responses to Misleading and Inaccurate Cigarette Company Arguments Against State Tobacco Tax Increases (Updated: 06.27.08 - pdf)

Raising Cigarette Taxes Reduces Smoking, Especially Among Kids (and the Cigarette Companies Know It) (Updated: 06.24.08 -pdf)

Raising State Cigarette Taxes Always Increases State Revenues and Always Reduces Smoking (Updated: 08.01.08-pdf)

Quite simply, raising cigarette taxes both reduces the number of kids who smoke and still provides a reliable source of revenue to the states. Every state that has increased its cigarette tax by a significant amount has enjoyed a substantial increase in revenue, despite tax-specific smoking declines and/or increased tax evasion. The only times a state receives less revenue than expected from a cigarette tax is when the state made an overly optimistic (unrealistic) revenue projection.

Readers can decide for themselves...a WSJ editorial or Tobacco Free Kids fact sheets.....along with considering the fact that SCHIP is one of the most successful and widely supported programs to come out of the federal government in the last 10 years.

Others can rehash this debate...makes no matter to me. A small increase in the number of Democrats in the House (to make it veto-proof, if necessary - it already has overwhelming bi-partisan support in the Senate that will be even larger with more Democrats) will result in its expansion so, from my perspective, its a win for millions of working class families regardless of who sits in the WH next.

Perhaps it is not an either/or proposition. The point in the WSJ was not to say taxes on cigarettes should be zero, but it was more a commentary on excessive taxes.

I ask the following - do you agree that there is a optimum tax? A point (tax rate) where taxes collected are maximized?

For example, for simplicity, lets say 1 million packs of cigarettes would be sold per year, under a zero tax. Taxes collected would be zero.

What if the tax was $100,000 per pack. Odds are no packs would be sold legally. The taxes collected would be zero.

So, at some point - let's say $1 per pack you may still have 1 million packs sold. Taxes collected would be $1 million dollars.

But if you raised it to $5 per pack perhaps demand goes down but still 500,000 packs are sold - taxes collected would be $2.5 million.

If $5 is good, perhaps $10 would be better, right? Perhaps, wrong - if demand goes down to 100,000 packs, the taxes collected would be $1,000,000.

In my view of this issue, if you graph demand and taxes there would be some kind of curve or pattern and an identifiable optimum tax level or levels.

Certainly as a society we could say discouraging smoking is more important than taxes, we could choose the $10 per pack tax over the $1 per pack tax. And collect $1 million in taxes rather than $2.5 million. But we should not pretend that tax rates have no impact on demand, nor should we ignore the impact of alternative sources for smokers to avoid excessive taxes.

This issue gets revisited because of new awareness of bad tax policy, like in the case of Maryland and New Jersey.