Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Bush Will Veto Using Cigarette Tax to Give Children Health Insurance

Saying that he is “philosophically opposed” both to new taxes and to using government to insure uninsured children, President Bush is threatening to veto a new cigarette tax that would expand health coverage for children.  Way to put your personal political ideology ahead of children, Mr. Prez.  Let’s see, higher tobacco taxes, while not deterring adults from smoking, do prevent many children and young teens from starting to smoke–at just the age when most people are hooked. So, this could save lives, right?  And insuring uninsured children (in a nation the World Health Organization has just ranked 37TH!! in overall healthcare) would presumably also save lives.  So, what part of this veto will be “pro-life?”


July 19, 2007 - Posted by | Blogroll, child welfare, economic justice, healthcare, human rights., Uncategorized


  1. Michael. Did you happen to catch the recent Democracy Now interview with Michael Moore? It touched on this.

    I believe it’s here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/18/1326235

    An MP3 version is available here: http://www.archive.org/download/dn2007-0618/dn2007-0618-1_64kb.mp3

    I’m still trying so hard to love Americans. GB2 has not made my quest any easier.

    Comment by Jason Goroncy | July 19, 2007

  2. I can understand the criticism of having less insurance for children, but I am “philosophically opposed” to sin taxes. I tend to see such things as social engineering, to which I am opposed.

    Comment by Chance | July 20, 2007

  3. “Social engineering” is a rightwing label for anything done to help the common good. It’s a libertarian mislabel.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | July 20, 2007

  4. “Common Good” is a right-wing and left-wing label used to justify any type of government expansion.

    Comment by Chance | July 23, 2007

  5. Let me elaborate on this. The “common good” is open to interpretation. Many people may think a higher tax on cigarettes is a good thing, but with that power comes the ability to tax other things that they may not agree with. What if a study somehow showed that heterosexual couples that stayed together brought about the best results for their children (better test scores, less counseling in the future, etc…). Should married heterosexual couples get tax benefits?

    Also, cigarettes cause cancer, but some studies show abortions can raise the risk of breast cancer. We don’t want breast cancer, so should we tax abortions more for the common good?

    Comment by Chance | July 23, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: