Weather Magnet

News
Print this story  |  Email this story  |  [+] Text Size [-]  

Oregon governor to renew push for cigarette tax



SALEM — Gov. Ted Kulongoski plans to announce a renewed push to increase Oregon’s cigarette tax to pay for expanded children’s health care when he delivers his state-of-the-state address Friday in Portland.

Details are still being worked out, but the Democratic governor is to announce he is resurrecting an idea that was left for dead after Oregon voters trounced Measure 50, which would have raised the state tax on a pack of cigarettes by 84.5 cents.

‘‘The failure of Measure 50 last November was a setback, but I refuse to treat it as a defeat. Kids can’t wait,’’ Kulongoski said Thursday.

The cigarette tax increase is one of the key elements of Kulongoski’s annual address in which he also will outline plans to seek more revenue to upgrade Oregon’s transportation system, possibly with gas tax increase or higher state vehicle registration fees.

Additionally, Kulongoski said he will push to increase the corporate minimum tax — set at $10 in 1931 and unchanged ever since — and dedicate the funding to Oregon’s rainy day fund to shield schools, health care and other services from getting hammered in the next economic downturn.

Kulongoski’s chief of staff, Chip Terhune, acknowledged that the shaky economy could make those revenue increases a tough sell with lawmakers.

‘‘This is ambitious,’’ Terhune said. ‘‘He is reaching hard for this one. But frankly, the governor continues to believe that making sure that children have health insurance is critical and that transportation infrastructure is in dire need of reinvestment.’’

Kulongoski also will outline further plans to combat global warming, which could include offering new incentives to encourage use of all-electric cars. He also will push for reallocating existing state revenue to provide increases in funding for K-12 and for higher education, as well as for Head Start preschool programs.

Terhune said Kulongoski’s proposals amount to a ‘‘road map’’ for the coming election year in which he will try to drum up support for those ideas before forwarding them to the 2009 Legislature for consideration.

The cigarette tax increase will reprise a long political battle in 2007 which ended with voters soundly defeating the proposal following a record-shattering $12 million TV blitz financed by the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry’s ad campaign focused on what it called the ill-advised move of enshrining the tobacco tax in Oregon’s constitution; other ads questioned whether all of the money would go to provide health care for children.

House Democrats reluctantly placed the cigarette on the ballot as a constitutional amendment because of House Republicans’ refusal to provide the votes needed to pass the tax outright or place it before voters as a statute.

Terhune said Kulongoski’s new cigarette tax proposal will be less than the 84.5-cent-a-pack proposal that was rejected by voters.

And he said it will be written in more specific terms to make it clear that all of the money goes to children’s health programs.

In the Oregon House, where all tax proposals must originate, Democrats hold a slim 31-29 majority. In the coming election, Democrats would need at least five seats to get to a three-fifths majority in the chamber, enough votes to pass new taxes without GOP help.

Terhune said Kulongoski thinks that with a scaled-down cigarette tax hike and better-drawn proposal, the next version might win enough Republican votes to pass in 2009 to help provide health insurance to 100,000 Oregon children.

‘‘It shouldn’t be a partisan discussion,’’ he said. ‘‘His hope is that by the time we get into the session, we will be in a bipartisan frame of mind.’’




Comment Blog - Note: All Comments Subject To Approval

withheld wrote on Apr 2, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Why not tax both alcohol and tobacco? Maybe people will think twice before they decide to slowly poison their liver or die of lung cancer. Maybe I won't have to walk through a cloud of smoke everytime I try to walk into any building. I don't like exposing the perfect lungs of my children to second hand smoke. So I say, tax away. I couldn't care less how much it costs the poor addicted souls. "

RW wrote on Mar 30, 2008 3:58 PM:

" To wg.....There are a great many alcohol related illnesses, so why NOT increase the tax on booze too? Supposedly this tax increase is to fund health care for Oregons needy children, so smokers and boozers should be equally taxed.....I don't smoke so it's no money out of my pocket, I just don't think it's right that ONE group is targeted to fund a whole program.....Boozers have health issues just as smokers do, so I say, they should share the load ....."I guess if you don't want to pay the tax, don't drink".....In a perfect world, government would learn how to budget their revenue and "live within their means" better so important programs could be funded.... "

Just Astounded wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Our brilliant Gov is at it again ..Ethanol and now all electric cars to combat global warming. Dont you need to plug in all electric cars to recharge them? Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Usually generators fired by earth polluting fuels. .Think of the electric bill you would be paying then. "

wg wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:35 PM:

" Why the tax on just cigaretts and not alcohol too? Perhaps because alcohol is not as invasive as smoke. Perhaps because when someone drinks alcohol others around them don't inhale it. Perhaps because second hand smoke is the culpret of childhood illnesses. I guess if you don't want to pay the tax, don't smoke. Don't purchase tobacco. Then you wouldn't have anything to conplain about. Well, in a perfect world maybe... "

RW wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:49 AM:

" The voters have spoken, how many times do they have to say NO, NO, NO to your tax increase before you take your fingers out of your ears and really listen? While we are at it, and you feel the need to increases taxes, why just cigarettes, why not increase the tax on alcohol too, why always JUST cigarettes? "

larry spelts wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:22 PM:

" i see that because there in no more ear mark,you all want to taxe cigs to get what you want , and call it any thing you want,ky did the same thing,stop bleeding smokers dry.go after some thing ells "


TERMS OF USE

Those who post comments are accountable for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they furnish. While we encourage writers to utilize this service on our Web site, we also strongly suggest they treat it as public forum where good taste counts. We reserve the right to decline for approval objectionable material from these blogs.

Writers that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments - such as racists language, threats or comments unrelated to the story - will not be approved for the blogs. Also, entries that are unsigned or "signatures" by someone other than the actual writer will not be approved.

While writers can still post anonymously, we strongly suggest that they do not do so.

Opinions, guidance and other information expressed in Argus Observer story blog comments and on the Argus Observer blogs represent the individuals' own views and not necessarily those of the Argus Observer. The Argus Observer furnishes this type of forum and does not endorse and is not accountable for statements or advice from anyone other than an designated Argus Observer spokesperson.


(optional)
   

All Newspaper Ads
Place a classified ad

Community Calendar
March 2010
S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

» This Week's Events
» Submit an Event
Click to View All Events

Business Directory
Find a business near you
Business Type

OR Business Name

Web Search
Google
 

Find out about our RSS feeds and what they are.

Copyright © 2010 Argus Observer - www.argusobserver.com. All rights reserved. | Unathorized reproduction is prohibited.