Maybe he’s just the “typical politician” he claims to despise after all. After President Bush’s wildly unpopular veto of the bipartisan SCHIP bill, reporters have asked Jim Ogonowski several times whether, were he in Congress, he would vote to override the veto.
So far, he can’t decide.
Why is this so hard, Jim? He’s said he doesn’t like the bill, claiming (falsely) that it “would allow illegal immigrants to access government health benefits.” His spokesdude keeps stating (falsely) that it would “allow illegal immigrants to steal from poor children.” If this bill is so terrible, surely Bush did the right thing in vetoing it, and surely Ogo would vote to sustain the veto?
But he can’t make up his mind. Where’s that independent-minded thinking we’ve been promised? Where’s the guy who’ll stand up for what’s right, regardless of whether it’s popular? Where’s that not-business-as-usual guy who says he’s going to single-handedly reform the way Washington does things?
Why has Jim Ogonowski become Jim Idon’tknowski?
Oh, and by the way, some pretty weak reporting from the Globe on this issue today. It’s one of those “he says she says” stories, where the reporter (Eric Moskowitz) refuses to point out that what one candidate is saying is false. For one thing, you have to read down to the bottom of the article even to find out what the issue with the bill is. For another, when you finally get there, here’s how it’s laid out.
Ogonowski … has called the SCHIP bill a failure of Congress for allowing undocumented immigrants to take advantage of the program. “The current bill takes money away from poor kids and gives it to illegal immigrants,” Ogonowski said in a statement Wednesday. “I support SCHIP, but Congress screwed it up.”
But Tsongas said Ogonowski was wrong in his understanding of the bill. “There is absolutely clear language that makes the intent of the legislation as obvious as it could be that it is not designed to cover children of undocumented workers,” Tsongas said, adding that a provision requiring people to show Social Security cards would prevent that abuse.
No, no, no. It’s not that “Tsongas said” that Ogonowski was wrong. Ogonowski is wrong. The bill does not do what Ogo says it does. We’ve talked about that ’til we’re blue in the face, and at this point it’s established beyond a shadow of a doubt. The article should read (italicized text mine):
“The current bill takes money away from poor kids and gives it to illegal immigrants,” Ogonowski said in a statement Wednesday. “I support SCHIP, but Congress screwed it up.”
In fact, however, the bill requires all applicants to prove their eligibility by supplying a valid passport, driver’s license, green card, or social security number, and specifically prohibits giving benefits to illegal immigrants. So Ogonowski’s assertion that the bill “gives [money] to illegal immigrants” is not accurate.
Reporters need to get over their allergy to calling out candidates who don’t tell the truth. It’s not “he said she said.” It’s “he lied she didn’t.”
that nobody seems to mention but I think its CRUCIAL. This increase in SCHIP is supposed to be funded by increasing cigarette and cigar taxes by over 100%. Now, I’ve only taken a few economics classes, but cancer sticks are getting ridiculously expensive to the point that it may shift over its point of elasticity. If this happens, people might gasp quit smoking, and then where’s the money for this going to come from?
<
p>
I mean, I would love if everyone quit smoking. The state is pushing for it, there’s great commercials, there’s bans here and there, and now the taxes are going to skyrocket?
<
p>
What happens when the smoking rate plummets (it’s been dropping for years) and there isn’t the money for it?
You have a problem with taxing cigarettes. How would you like to see this worthy program funded then?
I hate cigarettes. Frankly, the taxes could be 8 bucks a pack and I’d be all for it.
<
p>
My issue is that if you fund a program with a consumption tax and consumption goes down, the program loses funding, and then we have to come up with another way to pay for it. Some States have had budget shortfalls because of smoking rates dropping, so it’s a viable problem.
How would you like to see this program funded?
But pulling out of Iraq and taking the billions they spent there on sick kids doesn’t sound to shabby to me.
which party to you belong to again?
that we need to stay until the job is done blah blah blah.
<
p>
Gimme a break. Gimme a tax break.
<
p>
Let them have their civil war. Let them have a genocide. It took Europe hundrends of years to figure out their problems and live in peace, and they didn’t stop because some global police came in and made them play nice. Peace was achieved when parents got tired of burying their children to feed personal ambitions.
<
p>
Frankly, maybe a good civil war is what Iraq needs.
That is why the GOP’s sudden concern about fiscal responsibility with regards to this issue is falling flat with the public.
<
p>
Everyone knows Bush doesn’t care about fiscal responsibilty, He just thinks taking children out of the pool of people insurance companies can make a profit on is bad.
<
p>
So everytime some argument is made about how this program costs just too much, it’s so very easy to point at the $2 billion per week spent in Iraq.
<
p>
And the public says “wtf?”
that we can all hope to be faced with in the future. however, we’re not faced with it now.
<
p>
since they are obsessed with a few undocumented children getting their filthy claws into health care coverage, perhaps the republicans should run a pro-smoking ad campaign aimed at them. get them addicted early. make the buggers pay for the health care of real americans via taxes they’ll pay on cigs.
so don’t try to shift the issue to a feelings thing.
<
p>
And it is not a hypothetical. Michigan has already had big budget problems from cigarette tax revenues not being high enough because people quit smoking. To me, that’s a good thing, but it also says we should look for an alternative way to fund SCHIP before it’s written in stone.
MI is a rust belt state and is probably in worse economic situation than the country average. I’ll wager that they are relying much more heavily on tobacco taxes than some other states and the federal gov’t. IMO you are wise to consider the stability of the source of program funding. However, you have not provided any concrete information to give me concern for a federal program drawing on tobacco tax funds collected nationwide. Should we be concerned for the future? Maybe. But is the money there to cover the program this year? Yes.
But living month-to-month (a far as gov’t goes) isn’t good fiscal policy. This needs to have something more concrete and sustainable. Smoking will probably go away eventually, but kids being sick is always gonna be around.
or your ability to even hold one. does this mean that you shouldn’t sign an apartment lease today? after a point, the argument gets ridiculous.
and everyone’s going to forget about it, thinking that since its passed, everything is fine and dandy, when realistically, passing this bill is when you need to get started on writing the next one with a different funding strategy.
If you are concerned that they will let something fall through the cracks (and by the way, there is nothing to fall through the cracks at the moment because Bush has vetoed the bill), run for congress. Do you live in MA-05? The republicans could use a thoughtful candidate there. đŸ˜‰
I get to deal with the casino instead. woooopeeee. =(
OK, there is money to cover his year. Next year, we’ll have a manufactured phoney crisis about how sick kids will all die unless there is a tadx hike.
you may be right. i think the bush administration buys phony crises in bulk. they should have one to spare for poor sick kids. then again, based on the veto, maybe not…
That smelled fishy, so I looked.
<
p>
Check out the data.
<
p>
Michigan, 2004
Tobacco revenue: $932 million
Total state tax revenue: $23,048 million.
<
p>
Cigarette tax revenue made up about 4% of state tax revenue in Michigan in 2004. Even if 20% of people quit smoking in a single year, they’d take a ding of, wait for it, 0.8% of tax revenue. That’s if one out of every five smokers in Michigan quit in a single year. Less than one percent of the revenue.
<
p>
Given that sales and use tax are a combined eight times the revenue, that source of funding changing by 2.5% results in as much variation as tobacco funding changing by the 20% I proposed earlier. Seems to me that a 2.5% variation in sales and use tax receipts are far more likely in a given year than 20% of people quitting smoking in the same year.
Bottom line: not only did tobacco revenue increase from $622 million in 2002 to $874 million in 2003 when the tobacco tax went up, it went even higher to $932 million in 2004. Maybe it’s come down since then, but I’d be shocked if it’s below the $622 million MI was collecting in 2002. And, relative to a $23 billion dollar budget, variations in the revenue from tobacco shouldn’t have a significant impact on the total budget anyway — other variations in the economy have a much larger impact.
<
p>
So, to summarize: bull. It’s a valid concern, but not one that has played out anywhere, including Michigan.
<
p>
“gasp quit smoking” is actually quite the pun. Well said!
<
p>
I think this point is valid. But I also think that if cigarette sales go down some health care costs go down as well. I don’t know if that is factored into the bill. I do think it is an issue that will need to be addressed.
<
p>
And, to go slightly off topic, I will mention that I think that cigarette and cigar taxes have been a very popular way to raise taxes. Too popular, perhaps. But there is a brightside: by explicitly linking taxation with ending a social ill (smoking) and as a means for funding a social good (health care) we’ve seen taxes being raised without much pain and certainly without the oppositional fire-alarms seen with other tax increases. This is a good thing and perhaps a model for future tax increases… I think we’re approaching a technological solution to this linkage issue and may someday be able to show where your taxes go. People, in that instance, would be more likely to 1) pay their taxes and B) allow increases where necessary and feel good about decreases where able…
gambling + beer + boat + mayyybe a whale watch? Who’s going to turn that down?
seriously.
<
p>
This increase in SCHIP is supposed to be funded by increasing cigarette and cigar taxes by over 100%. Now, I’ve only taken a few economics classes, but cancer sticks are getting ridiculously expensive to the point that it may shift over its point of elasticity. If this happens, people might gasp quit smoking, and then where’s the money for this going to come from?
<
p>
I’m sure that you can recognize “surreptitious” behaviour. The problem that Congress has is that a number of years ago, they agreed that any increase in funding for any program (except the war on Iraq, as far as I can tell) has to be matched by an increase in some tax, somewhere–with outlandish predictions as to what the revenues might be. At least for the first year. Thereafter, all bets are off. So, even if nobody buys cigarettes in the second year following the amendments to SCHIP, the program will remain, and it will continue to be paid for out of general revenues (tobacco taxes go into general revenues).
David, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this appellation. It is clear as day that the guy is running on general impulses and stock GOP stances. He is not ready for prime time.