« Site maintainance | Main | About Mitt »

October 21, 2007

M50, $$$ & Justice

One of my chief problems with Oregon's Measure 50 is how patently regressive it is. It was only upon receiving my Voter's Pamphlet and reading the text of M50 therein that I realized that it's even more regressive than I'd originally thought.

This rant is about more than just M50, but bear with me while I make my case.

M50 contains a neat little clause which would allow the legislature to cap cigar taxes at $.50 per cigar, which just happens to be where cigar taxes are already capped at.

Now I understand that the legislature capped cigar taxes at that level because when it was higher cigar smokers simply turned to buying cigars online and avoided paying any Oregon tax. Capping the Oregon cigar tax at $.50 per cigar brought many of them back to buying locally and allowed the state to at least get SOME revenue from cigar sales. But this entire dynamic further underscores how patently regressive M50 is.

Cigar smokers tend to be financially well off and well educated. So it's not surprising that that money and education led cigar smokers to easily bypass the tax by going online to buy their cigars. In stark contrast to cigar smokers, cigarette smokers are heavily dominated by financially and educationally disadvantaged Oregonians.

According to the state's own statistics 30% of Oregon cigarette smokers earn less than $15K per year and another 30% earn between $15K and $25K per year. Meanwhile we know from those same statistics that 30% of high school drop-outs in Oregon smoke and that nearly 30% of those who only achieved a HS diploma or GED smoke (less than 10% of college graduates smoke).

So how surprised can we honestly be that an economically and educationally disadvantaged demographic probably has neither the hardware (ie. a computer), access or the savvy to bypass state taxes by purchasing online? I mean, how many HS drop-outs earning less than $15K per year do you seriously think could have known that there is a way to buy their cigarettes cheaper online?

Quite predictably our legislators didn't write in a clause allowing cigarette taxes to be capped because it's simply not an issue for them.

So that's the M50 portin of this rant. But M50 merely scratches the surface and in so doing it only uncovers the tip of the iceburg.

Much has been said over the years about the acquittals of both O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson in their respective criminal trials. The blame has been placed on the Juries. But I submit that that blame is misplaced. OJ and Michael were acquitted for the same reason that those white Lacrosse players at Duke were finally acquitted in the jury of public opinion - they all had the $$$ to buy the services of the very best, most capable lawyers. Those lawyer's competence is at the root of each of those acquittals.

How many people are sitting in prisons today not because they were any more (or less) guilty than OJ or Michael, but because they couldn't afford the kind of legal talent that Michael and OJ could afford?

And then there are the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If 1 out of every 1000 citizens can comfortably afford to give $1000 to the political candidate of their choice but another 100 out of the same 1000 citizens would not be able to eat for a month if they too gave $1000 to the political candidate of their choice... is it any wonder that Congress voted the way that they did?

Closer to Oregon... how many Congressional/Senatorial candidates do you suppose would attend a fund-raising "House Party" in the poor part of town and where those who showed up would only be able to give $10 each? How many Presidential candidates do you suppose would fly into Portland and hold a fund-raising dinner at $25 per plate?

Even closer to home... here in Washinton County "Nonna Emilia" Italian restaurant is a fixture and very well known. Nike co-founder Phil Knight and former Governor Neil Goldshmidt both famously loved eating at Nonna's. Nonna's is in Congressman David Wu's district. If the owner of Nonna's were to call Congressman Wu's office in Washington D.C., indentify him/herself as the owner and ask to speak to the Congressman... what do you suppose are the odds that Wu would, if he were available at the time, take the call? If the dish washer at Nonna's were to likewise call Wu's office and identify him/herself as the dishwasher at Nonna's... what do you suppose the odds are that Wu would take that call personally? I think we all know that the odds have got to be radically different for the owner versus the dishwasher.

I'm not ranting against personal wealth. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it. What I AM saying is that we ought to be honest with ourselves about how fundamentally tilted the entire playing field is in favor of those who are affluent and against those who aren't, particularly against those who inhabit the lowest socio-economic strata of our society.

Posted by Kevin at October 21, 2007 11:04 AM