« Foreign Desks | Main | Bush and Batman »

Great Moments in Straight Talk

25 Jul 2008 02:12 pm

443029428_865c7f2c57.jpg

Marc Ambinder reports from the stump on John McCain's bold stance against cancer with Lance Armstrong:

McCain developed an antipathy to tobacco lobbyists. He once threw lobbyist Charlie Black out of his Senate office because Black worked for Phillip Morris at that time. (Black now works for McCain as a strategist.)

And beyond Black, has McCain flip-flopped on any issues? Yes:

McCain now opposes sin taxes on cigarettes. He said he worries that Congress would put the additional money into a general revenue pool. "Does anyone here have confidence in Congress?" he asked the crowd. Moderator Paula Zahn was skeptical. Might McCain change his mind if researchers proved that raisng the tobacco tax would help lower smoking rates?

"It would have to be proved. I don 't think it's in the constitution of this Congress.” He hastened to add, “By the way, I’m not for anybody’s taxes.” He later implied that raising the cigarette tax would lead to more smoking as a way of explaining his decision not to support a Democratic attempt to use a tax hike to pay for more children’s health insurance.

So first McCain wants us to believe that he's so fanatically opposed to making public services more generous, that this is why he's opposed to raising cigarette taxes. Smoking is bad, says McCain, and it's important to promote public health by reducing its incidence. But it's even more important that we starve the government of funds for things like police and courts and infrastructure and health care and education and parks and the military than that we reduce the rate of smoking. Then, perhaps realizing that this is crazy, he turns around and asserts without evidence that higher cigarette taxes increase the rate of smoking.

Now all the evidence suggests that higher taxes lead to less smoking since, after all, what happens when the price of something goes up is that consumption goes down. But if this made-up fact were true, that would make McCain's position make sense, so why not just pretend it's true? After all, he's a straight-talker.

Photo by Flickr user pretamal used under a Creative Commons license

Share This

Comments (37)

He hastened to add, “By the way, I’m not for anybody’s taxes.”

Then stop cashing your paycheck, senator. As a kept woman, you don't really need it.
.

McCain might like to rail against pork-barrel spending, but let's be honest, he thinks all government spending is waste - unless it's for war or his social security check.

How can anyone watch this guy and feel "safe"?

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Well, at least he's now right! Sin taxes are fucked up.

"He later implied that raising the cigarette tax would lead to more smoking ...."

John McCain is really befuddled, evidence number 20,215.

The guy is pathetic. He's really working on the "vote for me out of pity at my incompetence" strategy though.

Who gives a fuck if higher taxes lowers smoking. Is that a good enough reason to raise taxes on something? That's stupid. Raise taxes on soda than, because tons of little fuckers are getting fat on that every year.

McCain's statements have got to be the most garbled, nonsensical ideological ramblings I have heard in a long while.
Exactly how much of the population even believes that smaller government is better anymore? Don't people want more government involvement in the economy now? Shouldn't McCain lose just based on that weird right wing mantra he keeps peddling?

He's using the word "proved" in the same context as ID proponents now, too.

I was going to start smoking, but it's too damn cheap. Let me know when they start taxing it through the roof and then I'll start.

The wisdom of John McCain.

Jack,
Seriously? A lot of people want a smaller government. The less the government interferes in our lives, the better. Most sane people want a less intrusive government. However, when your funding a trillion war, it gets kind of fucked up.

Exactly how much of the population even believes that smaller government is better anymore? - Jack

A large swath of people who live comfortably even in this economy and who don't directly benefit from Great Society programs still want "small government" -- it's pretty amazing, really.

I'd say what we need is for the peasants to pick up their pitch-forks and go after the richers (instead of venting their anger at furriners, et al -- oh, wait a minute ... I'm not allowed to point that out lest I be seen as a "liberal elitist" and this comment be like "Bittergate") ... except even that doesn't get through to the clueless. FDR saved the collective ass of his class (yes, I'm a poet and I know-it), and they still called him a class traitor.

The problem is that most people benefit pretty indirectly from the rule of law, property rights, etc. -- and they don't see how very much they get from gummint (they also have no historical memory about how America was pre-Progressivist reforms in the Gilded Age, for example) ... they only see gummint when they pay their taxes or wait in line at the DMV.

I had more to say, but now it's slipped my mind ...

Doesn't anybody else want to see the quote where McCain states that higher taxes will incread the level of smoking. I mean, there's no way he said that, right? That doesn't even show that you don't know what you're talking about. That shows that you have the brain of a child. A retarded child.

I'd considered voting for McCain, but he really just doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, particularly on economic issues, where expertise really is valuable.

DAS,
It seems like you are confusing small government with 'no' government. At the very least, I think you are mistaken about what most people mean by small government.

That raising tobacco taxes reduce the incidence of smoking, especially in young people, was shown over 10 years ago in Lewit et al.'s paper in Tobacco Control. McCain might want to hire someone with base-level familiarity with the public health literature, or at least a laptop and a MedLine subscription.

And I think Stacy's got a great idea. We should definitely tax soda, or indeed, anything containing high-fructose corn syrup.

Greg, why don't you just tell us what you mean by "small government" in that case? after all, property laws are damned intrusive, and you seem to object to intrusiveness, so you can see our confusion....

A lot of people want a smaller government.

That's true. But it's a large country. "A lot" of people can want something, but that's not "most" or even "many" people in America.

I think you are mistaken about what most people mean by small government

I suspect it means something like "government that does everything that needs to be done without my noticing it and providing services without my having to wait around for them or fill out too much paperwork."

It seems like you are confusing small government with 'no' government. At the very least, I think you are mistaken about what most people mean by small government. - Greg

It isn't most people, but recently one of my wife's shul's resident libertarian types was arguing that meat inspection should be privatized. I don't quite know what you figure I'm confusing, but there are is a swath of people out there who argue "I don't think anybody should pay for something with which they morally disagree". Given that such disagreements can include certain wars, by their arguments, they pretty much want only a military for national-defense, maybe a police force ... a pretty small, albeit still-existant government indeed.

In practice, of course, such people are happy to have a large military to kill swarthy folk, but that's another story ...

Maybe McCain thinks cigarettes are a Giffen good.

Well, Stacy, you won't find the quote because there isn't one. Matt blogs about Mark blogging about something Mark says was IMPLIED. But in Matt's twisted reality, this implication, like magic, becomes an assertion. That means McCain did not say it, but Mark interpreted other statements to reach that conclusion, and Matt takes it further than even Mark did.

But that's enough for the minions. It's also why hearsay is not admissible in court, where, unlike blogs, the truth usually matters.

It's similar to what can be implied from your short post using the word "fuck" and "fuckers."

Channeling an implied message, Stacy?

Please, somebody at the Democratic Convention ask the audience if there's any issue where McCain didn't flipflop.

Where is Ann Richards when you need her?

For the record, I am a Democrat who doesn't fall into the category of people that prefer small government. By intrusiveness, I mean things like sin taxes, prostitution being outlawed, seatbelt laws, etc. I don't bitch about income taxes, property taxes, sales tax, but raising cigarette taxes to lower the amount of people that smoke is something that I can't get down with. Seat belt laws alone make me want to leave the country, but I guess that's a whole other topic...

No, Red Hots, I just get really fucking steamed when it comes to things like cigarette taxes. Matt acts like stopping people from smoking is a good enough reason to raise taxes on them. Fuck that. That's all. Also, its been a long week, and I'm praying for happy hour.

If one believes that lowering tax rates increases tax revenues, one must also believe that raising sin taxes increases sin. Score one for (foolish) consistency.

but greg, that's not a philosophy of smaller government, that's people wanting cigarettes to be cheaper.

But I don't smoke Howard. Haven't had a cigarette since I was in high school. I just don't think the government should be able to tax cigarettes to create revenue or lower teenage smoking. That is an example of the goverment being intrusive. Anytime the government is making a decision on what's best for me, I can't deal with it.

"If one believes that lowering tax rates increases tax revenues, one must also believe that raising sin taxes increases sin. Score one for (foolish) consistency."

Sorry, Gordon, even in your nonsensical comparison, you got it completely backward.

It would work if you said "If one believes that RAISING tax rates increases revenues, one must also believe that raising sin taxes increases sin.

OR

If one believes that lowering tax rates increases tax revenues, one must also believe that LOWERING sin taxes increases sin.

Matt says that when "price goes up demand goes down".

This is true, but we also have to take into account the price elasticity of demand for the given product. In the case of cigarettes demand is relatively inelastic amongst those already addicted to cigarettes, but highly elastic amongst those who aren't already addicted. That's why sin taxes reduce demand most amongst children (they aren't addicted yet).

What is particularly stupid about McCain's analysis is that when demand for a product is inelastic raising the price actually raises revenues.

Matt says that when "price goes up demand goes down".

This is true, but we also have to take into account the price elasticity of demand for the given product. In the case of cigarettes demand is relatively inelastic amongst those already addicted to cigarettes, but highly elastic amongst those who aren't already addicted. That's why sin taxes reduce demand most amongst children (they aren't addicted yet).

What is particularly stupid about McCain's analysis is that when demand for a product is inelastic raising the price actually raises revenues.

Actually, Punk, your analysis only works if you believe that working is a sin.

You missed the "(foolish) consistency", as in "hobgoblin of little minds".

I think we need to start repeatedly using the phrase "John McCain is Making Sense", in an ironic/Alan Keyes-mocking manner.

I'm not sure he's is actually any smarter.

Stacy, I hope that in whatever time zone you're typing from happy hour is nigh.

Ed,
As a matter of fact, I'm actually typing from my laptop at the bar right now. A no-smoking bar, but a bar nonetheless. Enjoy your weekend!

John McCain is just making common cause with the Congressional Black Caucus.

It's clear that McCain want to reach out black people - something Matthew apparently opposes.

Nice, substantive smack down. Pedantic ass that I am, I would have taken McCain to task for mentioning "the constitution of this Congress". If he means the Constitution of the United States, it's a barely forgivable sin, since he really ought to be familiar with the document as a Senator. But how would the statistical proof he was looking for be in the Constitution? Does he think it's an almanac?

In fairness, I'm not sure McCain is referring to the Constitution. Perhaps he uses constitution as one might use "corporation", to describe the make up of the institution. But what "constitutes" Congress? 535 voting members, basically--and say what you will about Congresspeople, they are not ink stains representing statistics. Perhaps McCain meant congresspeople AND all that they know, in which case he is finally articulate and surely wrong: they do in fact know higher prices leads to less consumption. I want to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but I have no clue what that entails with this particular incident.

Greg, you're falling into the Reaganist ideological trap. The Republicans are for SMALLER government, not for some strategic asymptotic goal of government that is a certain size (except nil).

As a result, since cutting services ad infinitum is their goal, they will always want to cut services regardless of the outcome.

It makes the debate pointless when, in reality, one of the sides is only interested in being as unhelpful as possible.

The assertion that Matt makes, that "all the evidence suggests that higher taxes lead to less smoking since, after all, what happens when the price of something goes up is that consumption goes down" at first blush seems rational. Even the most basic Economics 101 class leads us through the "Law of Demand." However, what's important to note here is that cigarettes are a relatively unique case. They are a highly addictive product, more so than any other legally sold item in the world. Chemically, they are not even in the same league as your morning cup of Joe. As such, the law of demand, applies comfortably and predictably to young smokers whose bodies are not completely (yet) ruled by nicotine. They have the capability to say, "okay, at $6 a pack, I'm done". This has been well documented in Canada where youth smoking is significantly down in recent years.

Having said that of course, we know that virtually no plausible tax increase will affect the purchasing decisions of our most dedicated nicotine addicts. And who are those folks? Increasingly they are working class, poor, rural, gun-toting, "bitter" types. As in, the key to winning an election in PA or OH or MI or MO...etc. etc.

It doesn't take too much work to get to the rationale of Mr. McCain's current thinking on tobacco tax.

"Straight talk" according to reporters means that a person says things unequivocally without hedging. This is a great virtue to reporters, since they want authentic, controversial and new material, statements that editors can put in a headline.

"Straight talk" does not necessarily mean that the speaker has well-considered and consistent positions. What McCain says today if often a complete turn-around from what he said 6 or 8 years ago, and it is often factually incorrect and absurd on its face, but it can still qualify as "straight-talk" to reporters.


Comments closed August 08, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.