New math

Although it is still dark, I suppose it is time to go outside and look for the newspapers…World War III continues and I don’t want to miss the news.

OK, I did read the newspaper (local) and found an article that described some of the key parts of the $139 billion dollar tax cutting bill that *bush signed on Friday. There had to be something suspect about the bill as he didn’t invite the press to witness the signing. Since he signed the bill at an altitude of 30,000 feet while flying aboard Air force One, it was necessarily a pretty low key affair and during an election year, that is always suspicious. According to the article, one of the bill’s features is a $10 billion dollar aid package for tobacco farmers. This is the part that grabbed my attention. As you may know, there is no one more vindictive than a former addict and I am no exception.

First, one of the reasons that this caught my eye was a comment I heard recently (radio) from the lips of Doug LaMalfa, incumbent candidate for the State Assembly. He said, in essence, that tobacco was a legal product and shouldn’t be unduly taxed. I was troubled by this statement and had to question it. First, why is it a legal product? It’s a product that will kill you if you use it as the manufacturer intends you to use it. Smoke it, chew it, or use it as a poultice…it will kill. The only reason it is a legal product is because it is a moneymaker for both manufacturers and those who make the laws. It should be declared an illegal drug. But it would take a lawmaker with moral backbone to try and push such a bill into law. We don’t have any of those available at the moment.

Last, was the statement from the administration that this $139,000,000,000,000 wouldn’t increase the huge budget deficit that we now have. Let me see if I understand this…you cut taxes but they don’t appear as negative numbers in your budget? If this is true, why didn’t the administration use this kind of math with the first tax cuts?