What's Next? Caffeine, Big Macs, and Chevrolet?
June 19, 1998
What's next? Caffeine, Big Macs, and Chevrolet?
The death of the "Tobacco Bill" is good news - but for how long?
A year ago, five big tobacco companies and 40 state attorneys general
negotiated a proposed settlement of state lawsuits and handed the deal
off to Congress for enactment. Unfortunately, when the Senate got a
hold of the bill they got greedy, and the tobacco companies withdrew
their proposal.
Not all in the Senate went along with this bill. Senate majority leader
Trent Lott said, "The problem is greed has set in. It's the usual
addiction in Washington to tax and spend. This has gone way beyond
trying to do something about teenage smoking. This is now about money
grubbing."
The bill, which most people believe was to punish the big tobacco
companies, would have done he exact opposite. This measure would have
raised cigarette prices by $1.10 a pack, strengthened the FDA authority
over tobacco and nicotine, and brought new health, marketing,
advertising and labeling regulations.
All the money would have come from smokers. According to the Congress'
Joint Committee on Taxation, 53% of the taxes would have come from
people making under $30,000 and 97% would have come from people making
under $75,000. The bill forbade the tobacco companies from paying the
tax on the smokers' behalf. According to the National Taxpayers Union,
this bill would have enacted a tax increase ¾ as large as the 1990 Bush
tax package and nearly half as large as the 1993 Clinton tax package -
over $800 billion in new taxes.
If passed, this bill would have made a few hundred trial lawyers very
rich. Any money paid to a lawyer is money not going to the plaintiff -
the person (such as the taxpayers) that the court determines has
actually suffered damages. The Florida Attorney General's office
approximates the fees sought by Florida's attorneys at $100,000 per
hour. Instead of suing tobacco companies with state lawyers already on
the payroll, government officials "hire" private attorneys, offering
them a percentage of the take if the lawsuit is won.
"Of course the lawsuits won't end with tobacco. Beer and liquor
companies will be next, or the coffee and cola industry, or the fast
food and restaurant industry", says Amy Ridenour, president of The
National Center for Public Policy Research.
The American Medical Association's Office of Alcohol and Drug abuse
already argues that the attention paid to tobacco should now be focused
on alcohol. Director Richard Yoast has said, "The beer industry is
acting more and more like the tobacco industry."
Caffeine is the "new tobacco" to others. The Center for Science in the
Public Interest is calling upon the FDA to regulate the caffeine content
in coffee, tea, soda and chocolate. Fast food and restaurants are part
of another new "evil group". Yale University researchers are calling
for federal regulation of unhealthy food and punitive excise taxes on
high-fat foods. Professor Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale's Center
for Eating and Weight Disorders, says, "Junk food advertisements should
be regulated, and excise taxes imposed on high-fat foods, just as they
are on tobacco and alcohol." The Center for Science in the Public
Interest agrees, observing: "It's high time the [restaurant] industry
begins to bear some responsibility for its contribution to obesity,
heart disease and cancer."
Why should all this end with tobacco, alcohol, caffeine and fast food?
Every American automobile is manufactured with the ability to go faster
than the speed limit. Surely, some lawyers somewhere may even now be
approaching a state government official with a plan to sue the auto
companies.
This entire debate has gotten entirely out of hand. What has happened
to the days of personal responsibility? The President has stated the he
is "against anything that provides no life saving to kids and is
designed to save the political life of the people who vote for it." The
tobacco bill that was killed in the Senate would not have done this.
Instead it would have put an undue burden on the lower income families
that can't afford to pay an extra $11.00 per carton of cigarettes.
To the best of my knowledge there are laws on the books that make it
illegal for kids to purchase tobacco products. Would it be too much to
ask that the current laws be enforced? And would it not make more sense
to "toughen" the existing laws rather than pricing smokers into
poverty?
The liberals counter to this mammoth tax hike will probably be to raise
the minimum wage, again - forcing businesses to foot the bill, and pass
along the costs. Maybe the best thing for smokers is for tobacco to be
made an illegal drug. Then the Clinton Administration would leave them
alone.
Comments encouraged.
Information compiled from:
National Center for Public Policy Research
White House Publications
Reuters News Service
My Opinions
