First, it gives us – cigar smokers, manufacturers, growers, etc – the high moral ground. We can say that when it comes to children's health, we're open to compromise. Second, the economic argument is sound – God knows my fiancee and I smoked a lot more cigars when we had more places to smoke them (and while we're at it, we had awfully large bartabs too). Lastly, it's good PR. Let's be honest – this argument looks like rich cigar smokers vs. poor kids. There's NO WAY anyone is going to have sympathy for this side of the discussion, no matter how valid our arguments against the tax are. By offering something in exchange for something (which Washington will never go for) it makes the politicians look intractable and obstructionist. We can say "hey,we love kids and we want to help…but it was DC's way or the highway..Plus, the more cigars we smoke – the more kids get care".

Just sayin…

Everyone just loves Santa Clause, except for those from whom he must steal in order to be able to give away so much, The SCHIP expansion bill is another instance of our government's attempts to remove financial responsibility from a broad class of people, and instead burden those who are powerless to refuse. Rather than have everyone, or at least those who have chosen to raise children, pay for their health care, Congress is still attempting to single out a minority which they believe will not be able to defend itself, those who manufacture, sell and consume tobacco.

The unfair and illogical use of tobacco taxes to finance programs which are being touted as essential to such a large class of people, when coupled with attempts to actually discourage tobacco's consumption, is one of the poorest strategies this writer has ever encountered. Here is an example of a business depending for its survival on increased sales of a product, and spending an enormous advertising budget to convince customers they simply cannot live without it. When everyone involved ignores the manufacturer's repeated announcements that it intends to curtail or discontinue production of the product, for which there is no substitute, there can be nothing but disappointment. The customer, who hadn't even considered shopping elsewhere, is left with nothing but empty promises, and real frustration upon finding out that those who would have provided something are no longer in business, because the competition's claims were too good to be true.

Congress would not even dare to consider financing a measure benefiting children with taxes on such things as baby food, diapers, children's clothing, juvenile furniture or toys. Even more outlandish would be the mere thought of doing away with dependents' tax exemptions to fund their health care and education. Never in a million years could we count on something that fair happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave!