Submitted by kenmoellman on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 3:50pm
As chairman, one of my jobs is to promote the party the best that I can. I do this in various ways, but one of them is the political blog at the Kentucky Enquirer, run by Pat Crowley.
I recently engaged in an argument about Ernie Fletcher and cigarette taxes, with someone who claims, anyway, to be a Republican. This particular person excused everything Ernie Fletcher did wrong, because he increased the cigarette taxes, and added beds to mental health facilities.
Without going into the entire back-story, I felt as though it would be good to log this mess of a topic somewhere:
Fletcher was a miserable failure as a governor. Beyond almost immediately breaking his campaign promise to end the good ol' boy system, he raised taxes on more than just cigarettes.
He raised taxes on every small business with the AMC, later renamed LLET. This was a tax pushed actively by Fletcher. I personally call it "the Ernie Fletcher tax". This tax makes it harder to start a new business by setting a floor tax for all businesses based on gross profits, rather than taxing on net profit. Talk to the small business people out there.
Would you not agree that raising taxes in order to curb certain behaviors or to encourage others is a form of big government control?
So let's be clear: you're fine with social behavior modification by government? Yes or No, please.
If yes, those in control of government get to shape what behaviors are allowed, and which ones aren't? All behaviors permitted by the state are decided by who wins the latest election? Will you support this, even when those in power are everything you aren't?
Or is it just selective? You don't like smoking, so you're fine with penalizing people for smoking. If we penalize someone for an activity you like, would you be up in arms?
You will give a pass to tax increases, cronyism, and corruption, just as long as the cigarette tax is going up?
Personally, I like leaving people's personal choices to themselves, without having government, or anyone else for that matter, trying to force social behavior modification.
I respect the property rights of others, including the property rights they have over their own body.
I like going out and having a drink once in a while. Not slobbering drunk (not since I turned 21), but I do enjoy a nice bourbon from time to time. Should that be banned?
I like to play poker. I had a poker game at my house just two weeks ago. Should that be banned?
I've driven over to the casinos in Indiana before and blew a wad of cash there, knowing full-well that I would. Should I not be allowed to do that?
The trans-fat bans and soda taxes are coming. Are you in favor of those too?
If something is not "good for you," should it be illegal?
You call it irresponsible public policy. I call it adults engaging in fun.
I don't encourage it, but I also don't discourage it. I let adults make their own decisions, because that's what adults are supposed to do. I do encourage people to act responsibly and be accountable for their own actions.
All of this is ignoring those who use tobacco products as a cheap way to regulate behavioral disorders for those who can't afford the fancy medication with sometimes-psychotic side-effects. But, I guess Obamacare will pay for their medication instead.
For those in the audience, this is the same reason why legislating morality, in general, is bad. In 20 years, the demographics of this country will be very, very different, and setting the precedent that morality can be legislated may backfire for those setting policy today.
I'm growing my own tobacco next year, so Ernie and the D's tax increases won't affect me personally. Meanwhile, I'm buying from out of state, and Indian Reservations. So Kentucky still doesn't see any extra revenue.
Personally, I don't like having a government acting as surrogate parent or nanny.
Not a fan of the Nanny State,
Ken Moellman