Lighter - $1
Pack of Smokes - $4
Proving that money can still buy an election in Oregon - Priceless.

I smoke and I voted for Measure 50. Can't believe that it failed. Truly a shame.

With M37 neutralized we can look forward to more of the same, delivering much more fodder for certain blogs to condemn.

i don't believe M37 is "neutralized". saying that parts of it are *clarified* now by 49 might be more accurate. but, M37 is not invalidated by M49.

and, here's to the deep pockets of RJ Reynolds, the makers of a product that has only harmful side effects, no matter how much of it you consume.

but heck, those hundreds of kids suffering damage and dying every year from secondhand smoke just need to stop going into bars...right?

What's stupid is budgeting a stupendously expensive socialized medicine program with a diminishing and disappearing revenue source, and sitting there with a straight face expecting the voters not to notice that disconnect.

As for Measure 49, inasmuch as it was sold by its well-funded backers as an improvement and supposed housekeeping fix, a tweak if you will, to an otherwise great law, yep, the voters bought into doing that. It was far from an admission that 37 was a mistake.

And yes, the deep pockets won both measures yesterday.

Measure 49 is as close to a repeal of Measure 37 as you can get without actually repealing it.

Which is why it's so great that it passed.

expensive socialized medicine program with a diminishing and disappearing revenue source

If you think that was the thought process of the average person who voted against Measure 50, you're smoking something that wouldn't have been taxed.

I'm glad measure 50 failed, it wasn't because of health care, it was punishment on those who were not politically correct.

A better idea would be a weight tax. with over 50% of the population being overweight, suffering high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, it could be a windfall. On December 31 we can all be weighed and pay tax by the pound. Lots of tax money and maybe we will all give up the Big Gulp and lose weight. Kill two birds with one stone. Only problem, once we're all skinny, who'se going to pay for healthcare.

Of course "Measure 49 is as close to a repeal of Measure 37 as you can get without actually repealing it."
That's why 100% of Democrat legislators and zero Republicans passed it on to voters then the rigged title language.

What we have sustained is the stuff of Vera Katz' OHSU/SoWa letter to the editor today.
That's why it's not so great.

It didn't dawn on me until yesterday just what exactly was going on with Measure 50. Now I'm sort of glad it didn't pass. Does it take a double-majority in Oregon to pass a tax increase? Or is that just for schools? Either way, there's no such requirement for a constitutional amendment, which is what Measure 50 was. THAT, my friends, was an interesting end-around.

We had a chance to do away with a super-majority law in Washington yesterday, but it went down. We also passed a super-majority requirement for the legislature. Both were 52-48. I thought the the tax pendulum might be swinging back in the other direction. Boy was I wrong.

A better idea would be a weight tax. with over 50% of the population being overweight, suffering high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, it could be a windfall. On December 31 we can all be weighed and pay tax by the pound. Lots of tax money and maybe we will all give up the Big Gulp and lose weight. Kill two birds with one stone. Only problem, once we're all skinny, who'se going to pay for healthcare.

Thank you. Please come back tomorrow and post what Lars Larson says on his show today.

I thought the the tax pendulum might be swinging back in the other direction. Boy was I wrong.

Wait 'til Hillary gets the Demo nomination. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Measure 49 is as close to a repeal of Measure 37 as you can get without actually repealing it.

I don't doubt that those who put together Measure 49 and advocated for its passage were aiming to repeal 37. You're absolutely right as far as that goes. But it was never ever sold like that. What I saw was them talking about fixing 37's problems. And in some instances saying that they were trying to actually improve rural property owner's rights to subdivide and sell. But what nobody ever did was boldly campaign, " Repeal 37! Yes on Measure 49! Repeal 37!" That's what was never said. If they had done that way and have been right up front about that being what they wanted they wanted they would have surely lost.

That's why we'll see a new measure soon.

I think the voters are quite tired of the land use matter. Better to wait a couple of years before going back on that issue.

If you think that was the thought process of the average person who voted against Measure 50, you're smoking something that wouldn't have been taxed.

Since it went down in flames 60-40 it's really hard to extrapolate anything discrete about the thought process of the voters against except that they didn't like the idea.

Jack, do you really think Joe SixPack out in Gresham (assume a non-smoker) cared that our sacred Constitution could have been befouled by a "tax scheme?" I really thought (and hoped) that such an argument would only have an impact on reasonably intelligent folks who cared about the logistics of state government (i.e., those who really do care what our form of government is), but that those same people were intelligent enough to have figured out that our state Constitution is riddled with procedural gobbledygook anyway.

So this morning, after such a sound defeat, I'm left to think that 90% of smokers voted against the tax increase for selfish reasons (just as I would have voted against a tax increase on beer, healthy kids initiative be damned), and the rest of the people bought into the propoganda that focused on this being a tax hike to fund a program that the legislature couldn't get right on its own. My gut tells me that Big Tobacco's most effective argument was playing up people's frustrations with our state government's inability to manage its money, with our history of not efficiently funding schools, roads, public works, etc.

Joe Camel had three basic themes: the money will run out and we'll all be taxed; the state can't even run the health care system we have; and the bull dung about the sanctity of the state constitution.

I'm sure all three arguments played a role. But the merchants of death played the last one harder, much harder, than either of the other two.

I think the voters are quite tired of the land use matter. Better to wait a couple of years before going back on that issue.

It'll take that long in any event, but you know it'll be back.

I hope no one proposes to clutter up our precious state constitution. I really worry about that.

Measure 49 is as close to a repeal of Measure 37 as you can get without actually repealing it.

Which is why it's so great that it passed.

Bullseye!!! The sickening feeling I've had since 37 passed 3 yrs ago evaporated last night.

As for proponents not selling M49 as a repeal of M37; did OIA sell M37 as a repeal of sensible land use planning? round and round....

If we were to have only one of the two measures adopted, we surely got the right one this time; there would not have been another chance to fix Measure 37, but there will be further opportunities to address the health care mess.

It's pretty clear voters passed Measure 49 in response to a sleazebag media blitz from the very government planning class so often crticized, (by many on this blog) as being disingenuous, incompetent and corrupted.

I voted against Measure 50 because it would have created a new program with the aforementioned "diminishing..revenue source", and I didn't want to be on the hook for paying for the health program down the road. The ads and tactics of the tobacco industry were extremely offensive and blatantly inaccurate, but I held my nose and voted no anyway.

Jimbo aksed,

"did OIA sell M37 as a repeal of sensible land use planning?"

Well there you go. Since you were some how convinced M37 did that, no wonder the celebration for M49 repealing it.

Of course the idea that M37 repealed our land use planning, is oblivious to the realities of how massive, established and entrenched our land use system truly is and how little of it was to be effected by M37.

No doubt had M37 been written by OIA and exactly like M49 opponents would have cast it as repealing our land use planning and paving over the State just as they did M37.

After spouting for months that M49 was a derogation of the will of the voters, what does Dave Hunnicutt do now, when the "will of the voters" kicks him in the butt? He's got a ready answer: "it was all the ballot language." So I guess we're in for more crap from OIA about what the voters really want is OIA.

I guess the sleazebag media blitz in favor of Measure 49 was totally acceptable. . .

How about those folks who decide to have children also decide to take care of them? Can't afford car insurance, don't buy the car. And, if the government is the enmity counted on to "take care" of everyone, we are in for a bushel of trouble. Just ask the folks involved with hurricane Katrina. (Shameless presidential pun intended.)

I didn't want to be on the hook for paying for the health program down the road

There you have it, folks. The wall of selfishness that has to be climbed to move toward health care reform.

I guess the sleazebag media blitz in favor of Measure 49 was totally acceptable

If by sleazebags one means the likes of John Gray, Phil Knight and Eric Lemelson, I'd say that at least they're our sleazebags, and not the ones from the Virginias and the Carolinas.

M49 doesnt matter. The big developers will still be making "subdivisions and strip malls" anyway. They will just be dealing with the local governments when they take the land through eminent domain, instead of having to pay some local landowner for it. All that happend with M49 passing is the money stays in the hands of the big developers. Just like always.

As for M50, Im glad it failed. Those commercials showing sad little kids and the little girl with the cleft lip were just as shameful and disgusting as anything the tobacco companies did. They're just like all those campaign flyers people here rail about that tout everything being "for the kids".

A better idea would be a weight tax. with over 50% of the population being overweight, suffering high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, it could be a windfall.

as far as i know, nobody ever died from secondhand obesity.

or secondhand cholesterol or secondhand diabetes, for that matter.

i keep wondering--what part of "secondhand cigarette smoke kills thousands every year" is confusing to people?

How about those folks who decide to have children also decide to take care of them?

Gil, with mediocre family health insurance policies running at least $8,000 - $10,000 a year in the non-group market, how do you expect families making $50,000 to pay for that? Since about 40% of all families make $50k or less, how are they supposed to "take care of themselves"? Or do you think that 40% of all Americans shouldn't have children? (If that's the case, we better open the borders pretty wide to migrant labor.)

I really thought (and hoped) that such an argument would only have an impact on reasonably intelligent folks who cared about the logistics of state government

You're missing the point: the bogus "it's un-Constitutional!" argument was intended to give folks who were merely selfish about not wanting to pay more for their smokes cover for voting against the measure.

"You're missing the point: the bogus "it's un-Constitutional!" argument was intended to give folks who were merely selfish about not wanting to pay more for their smokes cover for voting against the measure."

Maybe you're right about the intent of that argument, but the measure didn't fail on the basis of the smoker vote. Only somewhere around 20 percent of the population smokes.

I'm a smoker, and I voted for the measure--because I think access to health care needs to be expanded in any way it can be. But I do think it's a mistake to finance a broadly beneficial public service with a narrowly targeted tax. I suspect taxes on tobacco already cover the specific cost of smoking to society.

Hooray for 49!! Now we just need to kick everyone who is an Oregon native out of our adopted state!!

Oregon - California's Canada

Miles,

I just went to BlueCross' website and plugged in info for a family of four and got quotes for basic insurance in the $3500 per year range (under $300/mo.)

That is about $10 per day. I bet there are a lot of $50K earners out there with a $10/day Starbucks habit. Give up the coffee/beer/lottery/new car/HDTV etc. and get some insurance! Don't force strangers to buy it for you.

If the state would quit passing mandated coverage you could probably get insurance for the family in the $200 per month range.

Oh, and regarding children. If you can't pay for them you should not have them and try to force others to pay for them. Geeze.

Question: "Since about 40% of all families make $50k or less, how are they supposed to "take care of themselves"?"

Answer: "Don't have kids until you can afford them."

If someone buys a car and can't afford to take care of it, I don't care.

If someone has kids and can't take care of them, I do care.

I don't think it's too hard to figure out the difference.

Gil, with mediocre family health insurance policies running at least $8,000 - $10,000 a year in the non-group market, how do you expect families making $50,000 to pay for that? Since about 40% of all families make $50k or less, how are they supposed to "take care of themselves"? Or do you think that 40% of all Americans shouldn't have children? (If that's the case, we better open the borders pretty wide to migrant labor.)

And THAT is the problem we need to address. It can be done without creating another stupid entitlement program that the proponents know won't be able to sustain itself but will win surely them votes. I find it sad that people never look at the root cause of why medical care is so expensive or why so many families that can't afford health care.

No wonder the Dem politicians and hospitals are all in favor of socialized medicine. Dems get votes and hospitals can continue charging whatever they want (since the government is picking up the tab, no matter the cost) while lobbying to keep the cap on the number of medical school applicants and other anti-average citizen policies.

I too ignored those stupid tobacco company commercials regarding the constitution and voted against Measure 50. What a cheap gimmick that was. Are the voters so brain dead they can't get them to vote against it based on the facts that they already have a highly bloated and mismanaged health care program and that this program isn't sustainable?

I guess sustainability goes out the window for liberals when it makes us 'feel' good, huh?

I will vote against every single tax increase that comes up until I start seeing some real money management from our government.

I will vote against every single tax increase that comes up until I start seeing some real money management from our government."

Yeah, sure. It couldn't possibly be the case that you'll vote against every single tax measure that comes up because you're selfish and cheap, could it?

"First, we passed Measure 49, which was basically an admission that Measure 37, which we had previously passed, overwhelmingly, twice, was a big mistake."

You mean all those people who said Measure 49 didn't repeal Measure 37 were LYING?!?!?!

NO!!!!!

As altruistic your attitude may seem, Mr. Roberts, all it does is motivate irresponsible parents to have more kids.

Just on a technical note, I think you could die from second-hand obesity if the wrong person fell on you.

so, the reason kids aren't provided adequate health care is simply:

"irresponsible adults have too many kids"?

stunning.

No wonder the Dem politicians and hospitals are all in favor of socialized medicine.

in fact, the majority of Democratic Congress members are not in favor of "socialized" health care.

Dems get votes and hospitals can continue charging whatever they want (since the government is picking up the tab, no matter the cost)

in every single country where health care is provided, that isn't the case.

which begs the question--what, exactly, are your conclusions based on?

while lobbying to keep the cap on the number of medical school applicants and other anti-average citizen policies.

good lord--you're calling the Democrat party the elite one? that's a good one.

Measure 49 is as close to a repeal of Measure 37 as you can get without actually repealing it.
Which is why it's so great that it passed.

JK: I hope you realize that you just voted for:
More density in Portland
More skinny houses.
More traffic congestion
Less affordable housing
More gentrification
More condo towers
More developer subsidies
More streetcars
More light rail

Thanks
JK

Oh, and you also voted to make Portland More like Loa Angeles (the densest urban are in the country)

thanks
JK

Richard - Is that really your reasoning? people who don't want to pay for stupid pet projects and out of control spending are just selfish and cheap?

ecohuman - You can't roll a turd in powdered sugar and call it a donut. There are VERY few members of congress with a D after their name that don't support government provided health care.

If you think there is only one elite party you're either highly delusional, in denial, or both.

So, all of a sudden it is an evil "entitlement" program to give children access to health care? The right wing nuts never cease to amaze me with their ignorance.

Wake up people- Providing health care for childen is good goverment policy! Health care should be a right, not a privilege, especially for children!

Yeah, sure. It couldn't possibly be the case that you'll vote against every single tax measure that comes up because you're selfish and cheap, could it?

I don't know about the cheap part, but I work hard for my income and I resent having it taken away from me so a politician can get a vote. Yes, I do and I will continue to vote no on every tax increase that comes up. That is not the solution to anything. That is not what our government was created to do. I think it's past time for history to get back in the schools with the lessons it has taught.

I just went to BlueCross' website and plugged in info for a family of four and got quotes for basic insurance in the $3500 per year range (under $300/mo.)

John -- Okay, so I'm at the BCBS website. One plan for a family of four that's $288 a month gives you "basic" BCBS coverage with no dental (because the kids can replace their teeth when they get their own damn jobs). It has a $2,500 deductible. Let's read the fine print -- that's $2,500 deductible per person ($7,500 deductible max.) Assuming one person actually hits the deductible, BCBS's "basic" plan only covers 50% of the cost after that. But it covers annual check-ups for free! (woo hoo!)

So you're right, you can get a plan for $3,500 a year, but it's not going to cover much of anything, and you could easily be out $8,000 - $10,000 for the year if anyone gets sick. It's not even much of a catastrophic insurance plan, since maximum out-of-pocket is an astounding $30,000 a year. For someone making $50k, that's probably not much comfort.

Wish I knew how to turn the italics off.

*Oh, and regarding children. If you can't pay for them you should not have them and try to force others to pay for them.*

Okay, even if I accepted your argument that everyone can afford insurance if they just give up lattes and lottery, if we don't provide health coverage to uninsured kids, the ones who suffer are. . . the uninsured kids. What did they do to deserve that? (Conversely, what did you do to deserve being born to responsible parents?) I understand your point about personal responsibility and we can argue all day about whether the parents are or are not responsible, but I'm not willing to sacrifice children on that particular altar. We need to give those kids medical coverage -- just like we give them an education -- until they're old enough to be responsible for themselves.

as far as i know, nobody ever died from secondhand obesity.

or secondhand cholesterol or secondhand diabetes, for that matter.

i keep wondering--what part of "secondhand cigarette smoke kills thousands every year" is confusing to people?

The number of people dying from second hand smoke is exagerated.

You are correct nobody died of secondhand cholesterol or diabetes, but they cost us a lot of money in healthcare. I'm overweight, unfortunately. I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes. I was also told that if I lost 30 pounds it would probably solve my problem. I lost 18 and guess what, my blood suger is normal. Don't mix apples and oranges. Obesity is very much a problem. In the last thirty years diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed.

They die too. They cost us, the taxpayers when we have to provide their healthcare through Oregon's plan and write offs because they can't pay the bill and won't get off their duffs and go to work on themselves

"Is that really your reasoning? people who don't want to pay for stupid pet projects and out of control spending are just selfish and cheap?"

People, like you, who say they'll never vote in favor of a tax measure--apparently no matter how worthy--until they see "real money management from our government" are undoubtedly just selfish and cheap, while trying to seem politically savvy and fiscally responsible.

You and many like you have given yourselves a nice excuse ("the government just wastes my money") to not care about anyone but yourselves.

It must be very pleasant for you to live in your small, simple world.

The number of people dying from second hand smoke is exagerated.

prove it, because the American Medical Association and the Surgeon General say you're wrong.

You are correct nobody died of secondhand cholesterol or diabetes, but they cost us a lot of money in healthcare.

isn't it sad that people who are sick and need health care are blamed for the high cost of health care?

Obesity is very much a problem. In the last thirty years diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed.

which has nothing to do with secondhand smoke killing people.

They die too. They cost us, the taxpayers when we have to provide their healthcare through Oregon's plan and write offs because they can't pay the bill and won't get off their duffs and go to work on themselves

do your homework. this sort of treatment is a tiny fraction of those receiving paid care through the Oregon Health Plan.

People, like you, who say they'll never vote in favor of a tax measure--apparently no matter how worthy--until they see "real money management from our government" are undoubtedly just selfish and cheap, while trying to seem politically savvy and fiscally responsible.

You and many like you have given yourselves a nice excuse ("the government just wastes my money") to not care about anyone but yourselves.

It must be very pleasant for you to live in your small, simple world.

I find it funny how you presume you know me and/or how I think.

What good is raising taxes to get an additional $100 toward something if 90% of that money is wasted or spent elsewhere, no matter how worthy the cause? Or does that not matter, as long as the little bit that does get there, gets there?

I'm not citing a specific example, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your thinking.

"I'm not citing a specific example"

No, and you don't feel that you have to--because you've decided once and for all that there's too much waste in government and you don't need to look at specific proposals and balance their worth against their cost. If there's a dollar of waste in one government program, that's enough for you to deprive another program of ten dollars of essential revenue. And if you can't see the waste and identify it, you'll just assume that it's there--because, as I said, you decided once and for all that there's just too much waste in government.

Really now, isn't that you? You're a child of Ronald Reagan, an acolyte of Rush Limbaugh and Lars Larson, and you voted for George Bush because he promised to cut taxes. You're frighteningly numerous, and absolutely poisonous to a civil, democratic society.

But if I've mistaken you for someone else, I apologize.

"For a civilized society to "THRIVE"
the two basic things that MUST be present are;
1. Medical care, and
2. Education

Without these two bottom line basics, we shortchange and deny ourselves missed opportunities.

The number of people dying from second hand smoke is exagerated.

prove it, because the American Medical Association and the Surgeon General say you're wrong.

Y'know, ecohuman...I'd certainly like to know how the AMA and the SG separated the effects of secondhand tobacco smoke from the effects of auto exhaust and other toxic contaminants our culture has been dumping into the air for decades.

Y'know, ecohuman...I'd certainly like to know how the AMA and the SG separated the effects of secondhand tobacco smoke from the effects of auto exhaust and other toxic contaminants our culture has been dumping into the air for decades.

i'm glad you asked.

Miles, if you pay for the dentist it might cost $150 for a vist, include it in the insurance and it is $300. Insurance isn't suppose to pay for everything, it is suppose to pay for the big stuff.

Think what your car insurance would cost if you expected it to cover every oil change. How much would your homeowners insurance be if it paid to clean the gutters or mow the lawn.

What would food cost if we expected insurance to pay for any item we wanted? How many people would choose hamburger over steak if the insurance paid for the bill?

If 50 had passed, we could have said "Have a smoke! It's for the kids!". And, uh, I guess that's alright, right? Once we've all quit, like the nannies and the state want us to, then what? M50 was stupid.