McCain waffles on sensible tobacco policy

March 27, 2008

There was a point, a couple of personas ago, at which John McCain didn’t mind showing some leadership skills on matters pertaining to public health. It’s what led him to work with John Edwards on a Patients’ Bill of Rights (which he has since given up on) and, for many years, support efforts to crack down on the tobacco industry.

But as is too often the case, the new McCain has little use for the positions taken by the old McCain. (thanks to A.B. for the heads-up)

Ten years ago, Senator John McCain took on the tobacco industry, saying he would never back down from legislation to regulate the industry. He also supported a $1.10-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund programs to cut underage smoking. “I still regret we did not succeed,” he said as recently as last October.

Now, McCain’s longtime effort to crack down on tobacco is being put to a new test. Within weeks, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. McCain agreed months ago to cosponsor the current bill with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, but McCain’s policy adviser said the senator won’t commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation.

McCain has also dropped his support for increasing cigarette taxes. Last year, McCain voted against legislation that would have used a 61-cents-per-pack tax to expand a children’s health program.

On the Hill and in policy circles, McCain was known as one of the “good guys” in the Republican caucus on this issue. The tobacco industry hated him, his fellow GOP lawmakers knew he’d vote with Dems on regulation, and public-health advocates came to see him as a reliable ally.

And then McCain decided he wanted to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008.

Reading about the crusading McCain in 1998 serves as a stark reminder of how far he’s fallen. At the time, working with the Clinton White House, McCain championed a $1.10-per-pack tax increase, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs.

The industry ended up spending an estimated $40 million to defeat the bill, one of the most expensive campaigns against a piece of legislation at the time, with McCain as the primary target.

“Is there anybody left in Washington who thinks that the McCain Tobacco Tax Bill is all about kids? . . . Contact your member of Congress now and tell them you oppose the McCain Tobacco Tax,” said a typical newspaper advertisement, paid for by Philip Morris and several other tobacco companies.

In response, McCain barred tobacco lobbyists from his office, and fought Republicans to pass the tax increase. Appearing on “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” on April 21, 1998, McCain was asked whether he would give up in the face of objections from the Republican leadership. McCain replied, “Never.”

A month later, with the measure on the Senate floor, McCain upbraided the tobacco industry for its opposition to his tax proposal: “They have sacrificed the truth and our children to their greed.”

That was a decade ago. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

I suspect there are some people who still have positive impressions of McCain, shaped by his work on issues like these. It’s time for these folks to realize that this simply isn’t the same John McCain.

Ah yes back in the good old days it was easy… after all who grew tobacco in Arizona but now… Johnny boy has to be in as many pockets as possible.

  • It really is weird; “funny” in a sad way… In 2000, a reasonably moderate and sensible McCain made his bid for the Repub nomination and lost. Eight years later, McCain threw all common sense to the winds and… got the nomination. Perhaps the ’08 McCain is, indeed, both older and wiser (knows better how to reach the brass ring) but what does it say about the Republicans in general?

  • What a perfect wedge issue. Republicans hate taxes, but most Republicans don’t want their kids to start smoking. Either way they lose.

    I predict McCain will fold, go back to his old position and then act like he never wavered. The wingnuts will forget and the moderates will but the media BS about him being a maverick.

  • I had once admired John McCain for his once strong and highly valued principles, but, since he sought the presidency, he has abandoned those principles in a heartbeat. For some, if not most, politicians who eventually seek the presidency, it seems they are very willing to abandon their once-admired strong principles and do anything–and everything–to succeed in their presidency quest, often to the detriment of their constituency, all Americans and the nation.

  • How ironic it is McCain is really only a maverick against himself anymore. He’s so sold-out that all that’s left of the guy everyone thought they knew and loved from years ago is a bunch of receipts from campaign contributors.

  • Well, just because you were for an increase before doesn’t mean you’ll be for an increase now. A better way of phrasing it would be to show how much the $1.10/pack amount has shrunk from inflation, and so needs to be increased.

    …But the other points were spot on, CB.

  • i still say it’s bullshit to support kids’ health insurance with a new cigarette tax. if it’s such a good idea, let everybody pay for it.

    your pal,
    blake

  • You know what’s funny? “Liberals” think its a great idea to tax tobacco usage in order to get people to quit. Then they think it’s an even better idea to take that tax money and spend it on a program, especially a health program. Like expanding S-CHIP. So if people quit smoking because the taxes are too high, how is the government going to get money for programs like S-CHIP? You could tax rich “liberals”, but they’ve already got accountants to bury their money too well, so there will be an additional tax on the middle class to pay for health care…for the middle class, who would already be paying for it through tobacco taxes. And that’s on top of the county, state, and federal taxes smokers already pay. But go ahead and add the tax. We’ll see a burgeoning increase in the purchase of black market cigarettes to avoid paying it.

    Wise up. Personally I don’t want to expand further into a socialist health care system. That’s just me. But if there are those bound and determined to do it, pick a better thing to tax. How about a small per bottle tax on domestic wine and a small tariff on imported wine? Think about how much wine is sold at restaurants, and how much money will get raked in by the government.

  • He probably voted against SCHIP because it makes no sense taxing tobacco to support any health care. The tax will “help” people stop smoking and then SCHIP will fall short.

    You said Quote: but McCain’s policy adviser said the senator won’t commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation.

    What responsible person would? Would you buy a house that you wanted without reading the contract? This is a non issue as he did not say he would not support it.

  • This epitimozes my uncomfortableness with John McCain. I was not of voting age for the 2000 election, but from what I knew, I honestly got the impression that he was the “good guy” among the Republicians and I really wanted him to win the nomination.

    I just wish I knew where the guy I liked so much in 2000 went…

  • SteveIL,

    I agree with you that using a tax that is intended to be a deterrent to fund a long-term program makes no sense – it is hoped that the tax revenues will go down while, in theory, you anticipate the SCHIP program will grow.

    But I do not share your antipathy toward tobacco taxes in general nor do I think the wine comparison is apt. The real point (to an economist) of tobacco taxes is to capture negative externalities so the price of a pack of cigs better reflects the true “cost” – not only of production, but costs to society that are picked up by people other than the buyer (costs of second hand smoke, lung cancer in Medicaid patients, etc) If those costs are not accounted for in the price, then the good is sold at an artificially low price (which is true anyway due to subsidies for tobacco farmers), and like anything “on sale” at a lower than expected price, people buy more if it than they would if they were paying a higher price. That is, demand is artificially high because the cost curve is moved down.

    The tax is really a way to ensure that the buying decision takes into account the full cost of the product so that people are not given erroneous incentives to overconsume.

    Wine, on the other hand, actually has both negative health impacts if too much is consumed but also health benefits if consumed in moderation (and it is hard to see where there is a lot of subsidization in wine prices – the traditional 3-tier alcohol distribution system is inefficient and restrictive, and acts as a “tax” in its own right). So a tax intended to deter overconsumption risks driving away healthful consumption as well. There is no “healthful” level of cigarette consumption.

    (This would all be easier to do with graphs.)

  • kill the subsidies for the tobacco farmers. Legalize marijuana and tax it – at least it has medical use ( chemo and cancer patients).

    • Comments are closed.