Scott Walker the Traitor of the TEA Party Movement

Leave a comment

When Scott Walker ran one of the promises that he made was to repeal the smoking ban.  Not only did this ban violate the Constitution namely the takings clause of the fifth and 14th amendment. ” nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Mr Walker not only reneged on that promise, it appears that he is expanding the attack on smokers using the exact same methods that Comrade Doyle used to enact the ban.  The state budget. First here is Scott in his own words on the smoking ban.

Mr Walker has a multi-pronged attack on smokers in the budget.

The first is an attack on the owners of the RYO machines on page 435

17. Cigarette Regulation Updates
The Governor recommends defining organizations that operate roll-your-own cigarette rolling machines for public use as cigarette manufacturers. The Governor also recommends studying the use of additional cigarette stamping methods. The fiscal impact from the change in regulation of roll-your-own tobacco machines is an estimated increase in tax revenue of $1.4 million in FY14 and FY15.

Ignoring the fact that there will be no increase in revenue, actually revenue will go down as a result of smuggling, it is a matter of justice.  Should the books be balanced on the backs of smokers?

On the Freedom index Wisconsin rates towards the bottom we are the 12th worst, down two points from 2009.

Wisconsin performs below average in a number of personal freedom categories. The state has high victimless crimes arrest rates, though its drug enforcement rate is below average. It has the worst gaming laws in the country (social gambling is not allowed) and almost the strictest campaign finance laws. The state also performs below average on gun freedom and travel freedom. Home schools are regulated with some onerous notification requirements. Wisconsin has some of the best alcohol laws in the country, with taxes fairly low across the board. However, its cigarette taxes are very high and smoking bans are extensive. Wisconsin recently enacted a domestic partnership law. Its asset forfeiture laws score well (over one standard deviation better than average).

Policy Recommendations

  • Reduce the income tax burden while continuing to cut back spending through cuts in government employment and public employee benefits.
  • Pass a right-to-work law, whenever political conditions so allow.
  • Reform tobacco and marijuana regulations, using the state’s alcohol-friendly beer, wine, and spirits regulations as a model.

The second assault is on Government employees. On Page 167

The Governor recommends that the Group Insurance Board expand the current wellness program and implement a tobacco use surcharge for state employees beginning in calendar year 2014. The Governor also recommends increasing expenditure authority for supplies and services related to these wellness initiatives.
4. Modifications to Group Insurance by the Group Insurance Board
The Governor recommends a statutory modification that will allow expansions of group insurance coverage only if deemed cost-effective by the Group Insurance Board.
Employee Trust Funds 155

Of course it has been proven time and again that smokers cost society less not more so any surcharge is punitive and more “Nanny Statism” and not good policy.

The last is the funding of the very groups that lobby against smokers.  They do it under the guise of Quit lines but these lines are the very groups that lobby against smokers so any funding to them is direct funding to their lobbying efforts since it frees up their other money. Page 220

To support economic prosperity and quality of life, the department exercises multiple roles in the protection and promotion of the health and safety of the people of Wisconsin.
Note: Programs, goals, objectives and activities have been modified.
Program 1: Public Health Services Planning, Regulation and Delivery
Goal: Provide QuitLine tobacco cessation services for up to 8,000 BadgerCare Plus adults and First Breath face-to-face cessation counseling for up to 3,000 pregnant BadgerCare Plus members using financial incentives as a tool for increasing engagement in treatment and increasing quit rates.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus members in South Central and Northeastern Wisconsin to the QuitLine by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus pregnant women in Southeastern Wisconsin to First Breath by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Implement protocols for evaluation by March 2012. Evaluate effectiveness and return on investment of individual incentives on tobacco cessation by December 2015.

Of course the above is pushed by those who work in tobacco control and lobby for these laws.  What it does not show that the big pharma solutions that they push are not only ineffective but they fail to show their ties to the big pharmaceutical companies pushing them.

Again Nanny Statism is not a legitimate function in a constitutional government.

The tactics used by Scott Walker are identical to those of Comrade Doyle and one can only wonder how much this has to do with his wife’s ties to the American Lung Association.  From her bio page.

First Lady Tonette Walker

First Lady Tonette Walker was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wis.  She spent more than 20 years employed in the insurance industry before working for the American Diabetes Association. Currently, the first lady works in the development department for the American Lung Association.


The Taxing Power and the Public’s Health

1 Comment

Previously I have written on Taxation As a Tool for Nannie Statism where I show in my state that tobacco products are taxed between 70 to 100% of the wholesale price of the product and that is just the state.  The Federal government as part of SCHIP raised taxes on some products as high as 2200%.

“I’ll say this plainly, I’ve said it before – Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do,” says Judge Andrew Napolitano

“And with apologies to Sinclair Lewis, if fascism comes to America, it will not be waving a flag or a cross, it will be waving a medical chart,” said Colorado state Sen. Shawn Mitchell

There have been many who laughed at those of us who talked about the slippery slope of “Nanny Statism”  Well we have been proven correct and we are not laughing.  This from The New England Journal of Medicine.

Many observers feared that the Supreme Court decision on the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)1 would endorse a breathtaking expansion of the role of the federal government in regulating health matters. And it did — but not in the anticipated way. While enunciating limits on the commerce and spending powers, the Court opened the door for Congress to use its taxing power to achieve myriad policy objectives. The federal government may now increasingly join state and local governments in making creative use of taxes to pursue public health goals, though political obstacles may block immediate action.

They go on to say.

The federal government has long used taxes to achieve public health goals, but in fairly limited ways. Taxes and tax penalties for individuals have generally been confined to products that cause health harms and associated social costs, such as tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and pollutants. Taxing of activities is rarer and confined to economic transactions; most recently, the ACA imposed a 10% tax on tanning-salon services. Broader use has been made of tax penalties and incentives to influence corporations to refrain from activities that threaten health, such as environmental contamination, or to engage in health-promoting activities such as subsidizing health insurance and wellness programs.

Roberts’s opinion appears to invite more targeted, assertive interventions to promote public health. For example, instead of merely taxing tobacco sales, the federal government could require individuals to pay a tax penalty unless they declare that they haven’t used tobacco products during the year. It could give a tax credit to people who submit documentation that their body-mass index is in the normal range or has decreased during the year or to diabetic persons who document that their glycated hemoglobin levels are controlled. It could tax individuals who fail to purchase gym memberships. It could require taxpayers to complete an annual health improvement plan with their physician in order to obtain a tax credit, though that might be challenged under other parts of the Constitution. These strategies depart from traditional uses of taxes by targeting omissions and noncommercial activities that are important drivers of chronic disease.

State and local governments, too, can pursue such strategies. Levying taxes to achieve regulatory aims — even taxes resembling mandates with penalties — is well within their police-power authority. They’ve wielded this power to impose various “sin” taxes on unhealthful products, as well as in more innovative ways, such as the insurance mandate with an SRP that Massachusetts pioneered. The Court ruling makes clear that the federal government can enter territory historically dominated by the states.

Freedom is on the line, individual rights are on the line!



The Determinators:

Whoever Pays Holds the Power to Decide

Taxation As a Tool for Nannie Statism


In the fight to keep the RYO shops open I received a letter from Senator Herb Kohl who supported the amendment in the Transportation Bill stating that it will help close the budget gap and close a loophole in the SCHIP tax. Of course the latter part is an out and out lie. It changed no tax laws, NONE. People who rented the RYO machines payed all taxes on both the tubes and tobacco. As I reported earlier in my state just the state tax on the tobacco used in these machines is 71% of the wholesale price. So this is more of a matter of politicians catering to their lobbyist handlers then it has to do with tax loopholes.

It is not surprising that the same lobbyist that pushed for the PACT Act also pushed for the amendment to the Transportation bill.

There are even investigations into the misuse of taxpayer dollars being used in these lobbying efforts.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee last week sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), raising serious questions about the possible misuse of federal stimulus taxpayer dollars to lobby for higher sugar taxes, increased tobacco taxes, restrictions on restaurant zoning, setting restaurant standards, and changing relative prices of health and unhealthy food items. Under federal law, it is illegal to use funds appropriated by Congress to influence in any manner a member of Congress or an official of any government regarding any legislation, law, or policy.

This has not only taken place at the national level but has taken place at the state and local level.

DENVER (AP) – Auditors on Monday questioned whether Colorado health officials are following the law by giving money from tobacco taxes to help local initiatives barring smoking in public beyond what’s already prohibited by state law.

But this has been the case with all of the “Tobacco Control” laws and you see the same players involved in each of the laws.

The PACT Act which was sponsored by Senator Kohl had the same nefarious players.

Specific Organizations Supporting S.1147

For those unfamiliar with the PACT Act

Official Summary

3/31/2010–Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 19, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 or PACT Act – Amends the Jenkins Act to revise provisions governing the collection of taxes on, and trafficking in, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

(Sec. 2)

Revises the definition of “cigarette” to include roll-your-own tobacco and to exclude cigars. Defines “delivery sale” to mean any sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to a consumer ordered by telephone, the mails, or the Internet or other online service . Redefines “person” to include state, local, and Indian tribal governments. Redefines “use” to include the consumption, storage, handling, or disposal of smokeless tobacco, in addition to cigarettes.

Of course the final section of the Act is an out and out lie.

(Sec. 8)

Expresses the sense of Congress that this Act responds to the unique harms posed by online cigarette sales and does not create a precedent for the collection of state sales or use taxes by, or the validity of efforts to impose other types of taxes on, out-of-state entities that do not have a physical presence in the taxing state.

One only needs to look at the original intent of the Act to see this.



(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009’ or ‘PACT Act’.


(b) Findings- Congress finds that–


(1) the sale of illegal cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products significantly reduces Federal, State, and local government revenues, with Internet sales alone accounting for billions of dollars of lost Federal, State, and local tobacco tax revenue each year;


(2) Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations have profited from trafficking in illegal cigarettes or counterfeit cigarette tax stamps;


(3) terrorist involvement in illicit cigarette trafficking will continue to grow because of the large profits such organizations can earn;


(4) the sale of illegal cigarettes and smokeless tobacco over the Internet, and through mail, fax, or phone orders, makes it cheaper and easier for children to obtain tobacco products;


(5) the majority of Internet and other remote sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are being made without adequate precautions to protect against sales to children, without the payment of applicable taxes, and without complying with the nominal registration and reporting requirements in existing Federal law;


(6) unfair competition from illegal sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco is taking billions of dollars of sales away from law-abiding retailers throughout the United States;


(7) with rising State and local tobacco tax rates, the incentives for the illegal sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco have increased;


(8) the number of active tobacco investigations being conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives rose to 452 in 2005;


(9) the number of Internet vendors in the United States and in foreign countries that sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to buyers in the United States increased from only about 40 in 2000 to more than 500 in 2005; and


(10) the intrastate sale of illegal cigarettes and smokeless tobacco over the Internet has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.CommentsPermalink


(c) Purposes- It is the purpose of this Act to–


(1) require Internet and other remote sellers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to comply with the same laws that apply to law-abiding tobacco retailers;


(2) create strong disincentives to illegal smuggling of tobacco products;


(3) provide government enforcement officials with more effective enforcement tools to combat tobacco smuggling;


(4) make it more difficult for cigarette and smokeless tobacco traffickers to engage in and profit from their illegal activities;


(5) increase collections of Federal, State, and local excise taxes on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco; and


(6) prevent and reduce youth access to inexpensive cigarettes and smokeless tobacco through illegal Internet or contraband sales.

Of course the act played on the fears of terrorism and used the fact that terrorist engaged it illegal cigarette trafficking but the act only put legal internet and mail order businesses out of business and did nothing to address the black market.  In effect they protected the interest of states that imposed abusive taxes on its citizens and protected the interest of “Big Tobacco”,”Big Pharma” and the National Association of Convenience Stores.

This abuse of smokers was exacerbated by the abusive SCHIP tax imposed on smokers.

The U.S. Senate approved a measure late Thursday to raise tobacco taxes and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip) to cover more uninsured children.

U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona joined 32 other Republicans in voting against the bill. They want the program to focus on uninsured children of the working poor, while the Democratic plan includes more lower- and middle-class children without health coverage.

The $33 billion bill will raise federal cigarette taxes from 39 cents to $1 per pack. It also raises federal levies on cigars, rolling papers and other tobacco-related products.

The plan already had been approved by the U.S. House and is backed by the Barack Obama administration.

The following chart shows exactly the abusive increase in tax imposed on the smokers.

Product Federal Tax Rates Through March 31, 2009 Federal Tax Rates on April 1, 2009
Cigarettes 39¢ per pack $1.0066 per pack (Rounded to $1.01/pack)
Large Cigars 20.719% of manufacturer’s price; cap of 4.875¢/cigar 52.75% of manufacturer’s price; cap of 40.26 cents per cigar
Little Cigars 4¢ per pack $1.0066 per pack (Rounded to $1.01/pack)
Pipe Tobacco $1.0969 per pound $2.8311 per pound
Chewing Tobacco 19.5¢ per pound 50.33¢ per pound
Snuff 58.5¢ per pound $1.51 per pound
Roll Your Own; Cigar Wrappers $1.0969 per pound $24.78 per pound
Cigarette Paper 1.22¢ per 50 papers 3.15¢ per 50 papers
Cigarette Tubes 2.44¢ per 50 tubes 6.30¢ per 50 tubes

As you can see above the tax on RYO tobacco went up 2259% , the tax on tubes went up 258%.  This draconian tax forced poor smokers to resort to using pipe tobacco, yes that tobacco went up drastically but wound up being a lower cost alternative as it only went up 258%.

Here in Wisconsin this abuse of smokers was exacerbated by Comrade Doyle who not only ramrodded the smoking ban in but imposed abusive taxes on smokers himself.  From the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Tax Type Prior to January 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009 September 1, 2009 and thereafter
Tobacco Products 50% of manufacturer’s established list price to distributors 71% of manufacturer’s established list price to distributors
Moist Snuff $1.31 per ounce 100% of manufacturer’s established list price to distributors
Cigars Lesser of 50% of manufacturer’s established list price to distributors or $0.50 per cigar Lesser of 71% of manufacturer’s established list price to distributors or $0.50 per cigar

The abusive taxes has forced cigarette smokers to seek alternatives.

From 2000 to 2011, total cigarette consumption declined from 435.6 billion to 292.8 billion, a 32.8% decrease (Table 1). Per capita cigarette consumption declined from 2,076 in 2000 to 1,232 in 2011, a 40.7% decrease. Conversely, total consumption of noncigarette combustible products increased from 15.2 billion cigarette equivalents in 2000 to 33.8 billion in 2011, a 123.1% increase, and per capita consumption increased from 72 in 2000 to 142 in 2011, a 96.9% increase. Total consumption of all combustible tobacco decreased from 450.7 billion cigarette equivalents to 326.6, a 27.5% decrease from 2000 to 2011, and per capita consumption of all combustible tobacco products declined from 2,148 to 1,374, a 36.0% decrease.

Consumption of loose tobacco (i.e., roll-your-own cigarette tobacco and pipe tobacco) changed substantially from 2000 to 2011. Roll-your-own cigarette equivalent consumption decreased by 56.3%, whereas pipe tobacco consumption increased by 482.1% (Table 2). The largest changes occurred from 2008 to 2011, when roll-your-own consumption decreased from 10.7 billion to 2.6 billion (a 75.7% decrease), whereas pipe tobacco consumption increased from 2.6 billion to 17.5 billion (a 573.1% increase).

Substantial changes also were observed in consumption of small cigars† and large cigars (Figure 1). From 2000 to 2011, consumption of small cigars decreased 65.0%, whereas large cigar consumption increased 233.1% (Table 2). The largest changes occurred from 2008 to 2011, when small cigar consumption decreased from 5.9 billion to 0.8 billion (an 86.4% decrease), whereas large cigar consumption increased from 5.7 billion to 12.9 billion (a 126.3% increase).

Annual cigarette consumption declined each year during 2000–2011, including a 2.6% decrease from 2010 to 2011, but total consumption of combustible tobacco decreased only 0.8% from 2010 to 2011, in part because of the effect of continued increases in the consumption of noncigarette combustible tobacco products (Figure 2). From 2000 to 2011, the percentage of total combustible tobacco consumption composed of loose tobacco and cigars increased from 3.4% (15.2 billion cigarette equivalents out of 450.7 billion) to 10.4% (33.8 billion of 326.6 billion).

Additional Tax Hikes Likely

Kristina Rasmussen, director of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, said, “We are absolutely opposed to this massive tax increase, which would come along with a massive increase in government spending. The planned increase in the tobacco tax would be expected to pay for a huge increase in government spending. But the use of tobacco products is going down, so smokers and nonsmokers alike will pay for those spending increases through other increased taxes.”

A recent study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy supports Rasmussen’s point. “Cigarette Taxes and Smuggling: A Statistical Analysis and Historical Review” reported high cigarette taxes are leading to an increase in cigarette smuggling. That problem, combined with reduced levels of smoking as smokers try to cut costs, consistently results in less cigarette tax revenue than projected.

In New Jersey (where the smuggling rate exceeds 40 percent), cigarette revenue has not merely fallen short of projections. The amount of revenue collected has fallen, after four tax hikes in the past seven years have taken the tax to $2.58 per pack.

Heartland also points to why these abusive taxes are favorable to politicians.

Popular with Lawmakers

With a national smoking rate of just under 20 percent, it is no wonder that raising cigarette taxes is popular with lawmakers, says John Nothdurft, a legislative specialist at The Heartland Institute. The “tax thee, but not me” approach makes raising cigarette and other “sin” taxes appealing to politicians who want more revenue without angering most taxpayers.

However, “This concentrates the tax on a minority of people who can least afford it and who already pay more than their fair share,” Nothdurft said.

“Cigarette taxes are highly regressive and place an undue burden on the poor,” Nothdurft continued. “Studies have shown that tobacco use is more common among low-income Americans than among those with higher incomes. Cigarette taxes take a bigger share of the income of a low-income person than of a high-income person, and the low-income person pays more in cigarette taxes in absolute terms, as well.”

Analysts note state and local taxes on tobacco products are already past the point on the Laffer Curve where raising rates reduces revenues. Named for economist Arthur Laffer, the curve shows at a certain point a high tax rate will actually decrease revenue because the tax becomes so punishing that people avoid the taxed item or activity.

There is plenty of proof that using taxation to enact “nanny statism” is a dismal failure and a regressive tax on the poor.

ALBANY — Low-income smokers in New York spend 25 percent of their income on cigarettes, according to a new study, which led advocates for smokers’ rights to say it proved high taxes were regressive and ineffective. . . .

Audrey Silk of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, an advocacy group, said the study showed that cigarette taxes were punitive and “undeniably regressive.”

“It busts their theory that high taxes equal submission to their coercive measure,” Ms. Silk said. She criticized those in government who opposed smoking and increased related taxes.

The smuggling that has taken place as a result of these draconian taxes is well documented.

Here is a question for lawmakers to consider before casting their votes to raise the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack: How can the number of smokers have increased over the last decade while the number of tax-paid cigarettes has fallen sharply?

The answer is that Americans are smoking millions of bootlegged cigarettes.

Consider the case of Jorge Abraham. He’s not exactly the stereotypical border-crossing smuggler: a quadriplegic living with his parents in El Paso. But prosecutors called him “extremely resourceful” when he smuggled millions of packs of cigarettes into the U.S. from China and distributed them nationwide. In 2005 he pled guilty and went to prison.

What drove Mr. Abraham, and what encourages others like him, is the simple arithmetic of cigarette tax evasion. Today a pack of brand name cigarettes can be had for as little as $1.25 in low-tax jurisdictions around the world. Due mostly to federal, state and local taxes, the U.S. price for that same pack reaches $7.50. When Jorge Abraham or any other smuggler moves just one shipping container containing 200,000 packs into the U.S., the profit potential is a cool $1 million.

As in other black markets—such as that for illicit drugs—such enormous profits lure many violent individuals into the trade. A recent string of homicides and shootings in New York City described in a Tax Foundation paper on cigarette tax evasion illustrates just how severe these problems can be.

Tax evasion is by no means the only crime that will rise in the wake of a much higher federal cigarette tax. Cigarettes are often the product of choice for thieves since the development of an active black market creates a place where they can quickly be sold for cash. Across the country cigarette tax hikes have been accompanied bytobacco-related crime waves that threaten truck drivers and retail clerks and other innocent people along the cigarette distribution chain.

Here’s more.

The authors’ review of Michigan’s, New Jersey’s and California’s cigarette smuggling experiences suggest that cigarette smugglers can realize large profits: tens of thousands of dollars for a single vanload of cigarettes, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single truckload. These sums represent a loss in estimated tax revenues to a state’s treasury, but they have produced other unintended consequences, including a variety of crimes:

These societal costs are frequently borne by innocent people. This, together with the authors’ cigarette smuggling estimates, suggests that state policymakers should reassess the value of cigarette taxes as a revenue and public health tool. States with high cigarette taxes, for instance, may want to consider reducing those taxes to reduce the smuggling incentive and the attendant ancillary crime. States with lower cigarette tax rates should be cautious about increasing the taxes, especially with an apparent growth in international smuggling. State policymakers should also recall that cigarette taxes are regressive, and that cigarette tax revenues are best spent on programs that mitigate the cost of smoking, not on general programs that would be more properly financed by the general taxpayer.

Just this week this was reported in Kansas City

In a case that started in the aisles of a Kansas City convenience store, federal authorities say they have uncovered a nationwide conspiracy to illegally traffic tens of millions of dollars worth of cigarettes.

Several area residents allegedly were at the hub of the enterprise. Although no criminal charges have been filed, federal prosecutors this year seized more than $2.6 million from individuals and their bank accounts as part of the ongoing investigation.

Prosecutors are pursuing the forfeiture of the money, a $550,000 airplane and four semi trucks that authorities contend were purchased with illegally obtained proceeds. A Lee’s Summit man is among those trying to get some of the money back.

The scope of the alleged conspiracy is outlined in a 101-page civil complaint that prosecutors filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City. . .

Trafficking in contraband cigarettes occurs throughout the country, said Special Agent Trista Frederick, a spokeswoman for the ATF in Kansas City. Because of the underground nature of the business, its scope is hard to quantify.

“It can be quite lucrative,” she said.

In one California case she investigated, state revenue officials estimated that over an 18-month period the state was deprived of about $17 million in tax revenue, Frederick said.

So while lawmakers attempt to use punitive taxes as a means to enact social change and install “nanny statist” laws it is clear that the outcome is far from the outcome that they intended.  It not only does not produce their desired outcomes it promotes criminal activity which in their minds justifies even more violations on civil liberties and more punitive laws.

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”

Chief Justice John Marshall

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.  C.S. Lewis

The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices — paid by others.  Millions of people’s lives are made worse in innumerable ways, in order that a relative handful of busybodies can feel important and superior. Thomas Sowell

For more information on Tobacco Control tactics click here.

Taxation Without Representation

1 Comment

I have repeatedly brought up the abusive taxes invoked on the smokers. The 2400% abusive increase to pay for SCHIP. Like any abused group we looked for a way to end this abuse. Many found it by rolling their own and using pipe tobacco. This has turned into a new industry in Wisconsin as shops are popping up all over to cater to smokers cutting the abusive taxes massively. Of course the lobbyist that pushed for these draconian taxes are crying fowl and are now calling for an increase on all tobacco products. From Smoke Free Wisconsin’s blog:

A recent poll found strong, bi-partisan, statewide support for proposals to move all tobacco products behind the counter, close tax loopholes that allow some tobacco products to be taxed less than others and continue funding the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program

Of course they only polled 500 people so I would hardly call that strong and of course the questions were very leading questions implying that this so called tax evasion is to target kids. Not once do they mention that it is adults that are flocking to these shops to evade the abusive tax that these smoke free groups forced on us. Here is the survey. All the while they demand more government funding to continue to lobby against smokers and continue the abuse. This is the equivalent to taxing blacks to fund the KKK or taxing Jews to fund the Nazi party. Should any tax dollars be used for any lobbying effort period. Here is a recent example of tax dollars being used to promote the discrimination against smokers.

This ad was bought and paid for using taxpayer funding.

The ad — paid for by a Centers for Disease Control grant — never specifically mentions legislation, but it clearly aims to raise support for an all-encompassing indoor smoking ban in Las Vegas, where smoking is outlawed in many places but is permitted in casinos, bars and, thanks to the 2011 Legislature, some restaurants.

Michigan is beginning to see the light by lowering the cigarette tax by $!.00, this will have more of an impact on teen smoking then higher taxes ever will. Why you ask? Because it reduces smuggling and would force teens to go to legal vendors who would card them as opposed to criminal street vendors.

The study finds that in 2006 almost 35 percent of all the cigarettes consumed in Michigan (legal and illegal) were smuggled into the state, and smuggling is not the only unintended consequence of high state cigarette excise taxes. It has also contributed to crime ranging from vandalism to violence to terrorism.

So go ahead with your bogus polls Smoke Free, some of us have your number and the word is spreading.

Fairness or license to steal


Anyone with common sense knows that the PACT act which was thinly veiled as an attempt to stop cigarette sales to minors, was actually a protectionist move by states with high taxes to gouge their constituents with draconian taxes. It was a dismal failure as it increased smuggling and there are many tribes that do not have to adhere to the law and smuggling of imports of dubious quality from China. Now these progressive types have moved on to the next stage to protect the draconian taxes they impose. Progressive Dick Durbin now wants to introduce these draconian measures to all internet sales like many of us feared all under the thinnly veiled attempt at “Fairness”.

Durbin’s bill, dubbed the Main Street Fairness Act, is being portrayed as an end to the tax holiday that online shoppers on major internet vendors have enjoyed for years.

Online companies already pay state taxes in the states in which they reside, but many politicians — including those in New York, Illinois and Connecticut — recently pushed to collect taxes from customers on purchases made outside the state if the sites have vendors that physically reside within their states.

Durbin’s proposal intends to push internet vendors to collect state taxes on items purchased out of state.

Anyone with an IQ higher then one knows that the so called tax savings from internet sales are usually offset by shipping and handling charges. But more to the point is that competition between the states helps keep taxes lower for all of us. If a state charges too high of a tax they will lose business to other states, competition keeps prices and taxes down. It is time for these politicians to simply admit that their taxes are bad for business and lower or repeal them. Don’t pass protectionist laws that punish the consumer. After all isn’t that who you so called progressives are looking out for. Or are you finally going to admit that it is all about power,control and money!