Correspondance from Senator Landrieu

[macjoe53]

THIS JUST IN.....

August 16, 2007

Dear Mr. Gibson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the tobacco tax increase that Congress proposed. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.
 I am a strong supporter of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which will be funded by the tax increase. On August 2, the Senate passed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (S. 1893). I voted for this legislation.
 I understand your concerns about a tobacco tax increase. The proposed tax per cigar is 53% of the sale price, and the bill originally included a $10 cap on the tax per cigar. However, the Senate approved an amendment that reduced the cap to $3. With this reduction, cigars with a sale price of $5.66 or higher would be taxed no more than $3. According to the Cigar Association, the average manufacturer’s sale price for popular-priced cigars, which make up 94% of the cigar market, is 30 cents. Therefore, under this bill, the average tax on 94% of all cigars sold in the U.S. would be 16 cents.
The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act will increase the tobacco tax that currently funds the federal matching grant for CHIP, which will allow the program to continue to cover the children from low-income families whom it is meant to serve. This bill increases the funding that is needed to provide coverage for children who are currently eligible for CHIP. If this bill is not enacted, 800,000 children currently in CHIP could lose their coverage. This bill also covers 2.6 million children who are already eligible but do not have coverage. It expands coverage to only 600,000 new children.
Thank you again for writing me regarding this matter. Please feel free to continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern.

With warmest regards, I am
 Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator

MY REPLY TO HER REPLY

Dear Senator Landrieu,

Thank you for taking the time to clarify you position. The information on the Senate proposed tax on cigars is interesting and is definitely better than what the House has passed in terms on how much the tax is.

I too am in favor of providing that qualified children are provided with the health care they need. Where I disagree with you on the bills which have been passed is the expansion of the program to include even more children and families, many of which do not meet the current criteria.

For example, I find it hard to define as a “child” someone who is 25 years old. At 25 years of age, they are old enough to vote, buy alcohol and tobacco, get married or enter into a partnership, own a business, buy and own a home, and serve in the military. I also disagree that a family or individual earning $80,000 a year is poverty stricken. Under the new bills, a individual could be 25 years old and earning $80,000 a year and qualify for the CHIP program.

$80,000 is more than 95 percent of the people serving in the military make and Congress and the Senate has never considered military personnel to be poverty stricken. Indeed, when it comes time for military pay raises, many members of Congress and the Senate remark on how well compensated the military is when they are voting to lower the pay raise percentage.

I am sorry but you and the other supporters of the CHIP reauthorization acts are not acting in the best interest of this country. And while I understand that no politician wants to be viewed as being “against the children”, I feel that expanding CHIP in the manner which both the House and Senate have chosen is nothing more than building a bigger government program that will eventually hurt many middle income wage earners like myself.

Sincerely

Joe Gibson

[boonedoggle]

Originally Posted by macjoe53

THIS JUST IN.....

August 16, 2007

Dear Mr. Gibson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the tobacco tax increase that Congress proposed. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.
 I am a strong supporter of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which will be funded by the tax increase. On August 2, the Senate passed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (S. 1893). I voted for this legislation.
 I understand your concerns about a tobacco tax increase. The proposed tax per cigar is 53% of the sale price, and the bill originally included a $10 cap on the tax per cigar. However, the Senate approved an amendment that reduced the cap to $3. With this reduction, cigars with a sale price of $5.66 or higher would be taxed no more than $3. According to the Cigar Association, the average manufacturer’s sale price for popular-priced cigars, which make up 94% of the cigar market, is 30 cents. Therefore, under this bill, the average tax on 94% of all cigars sold in the U.S. would be 16 cents.
The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act will increase the tobacco tax that currently funds the federal matching grant for CHIP, which will allow the program to continue to cover the children from low-income families whom it is meant to serve. This bill increases the funding that is needed to provide coverage for children who are currently eligible for CHIP. If this bill is not enacted, 800,000 children currently in CHIP could lose their coverage. This bill also covers 2.6 million children who are already eligible but do not have coverage. It expands coverage to only 600,000 new children.
Thank you again for writing me regarding this matter. Please feel free to continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern.

With warmest regards, I am
 Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator

MY REPLY TO HER REPLY

Dear Senator Landrieu,

Thank you for taking the time to clarify you position. The information on the Senate proposed tax on cigars is interesting and is definitely better than what the House has passed in terms on how much the tax is.

I too am in favor of providing that qualified children are provided with the health care they need. Where I disagree with you on the bills which have been passed is the expansion of the program to include even more children and families, many of which do not meet the current criteria.

For example, I find it hard to define as a “child” someone who is 25 years old. At 25 years of age, they are old enough to vote, buy alcohol and tobacco, get married or enter into a partnership, own a business, buy and own a home, and serve in the military. I also disagree that a family or individual earning $80,000 a year is poverty stricken. Under the new bills, a individual could be 25 years old and earning $80,000 a year and qualify for the CHIP program.

$80,000 is more than 95 percent of the people serving in the military make and Congress and the Senate has never considered military personnel to be poverty stricken. Indeed, when it comes time for military pay raises, many members of Congress and the Senate remark on how well compensated the military is when they are voting to lower the pay raise percentage.

I am sorry but you and the other supporters of the CHIP reauthorization acts are not acting in the best interest of this country. And while I understand that no politician wants to be viewed as being “against the children”, I feel that expanding CHIP in the manner which both the House and Senate have chosen is nothing more than building a bigger government program that will eventually hurt many middle income wage earners like myself.

Sincerely

Joe Gibson

Wow. I liked Mary until now.

[ragin' cajun]

Rock on brother, next time she's up for re-election or whatever her next goal is she's gonna be one vote less from me. Until now I have found her to be easy to like some of her positions were good, and pleased me. The way she dealt with Katrina could have been better but it's my belief that she was hampered greatly in some effects. Either way thanks for your input it was and is greatly appreciated.



LSU LSU LSU

[uncballzer]

Well if they actually used the money we already gave them wisely, we woulnd't even need this post. Read off of a digg post (I think it was digg) yesterday about how the pentagon or whoever spent $400,000 to ship a nut and bolt to Iraq. Seriously, where the hell is this money going? I could run the government's spending better and I have never taken a statistics course!

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by uncballzer

Well if they actually used the money we already gave them wisely, we woulnd't even need this post. Read off of a digg post (I think it was digg) yesterday about how the pentagon or whoever spent $400,000 to ship a nut and bolt to Iraq. Seriously, where the hell is this money going? I could run the government's spending better and I have never taken a statistics course!

Correct.

But you have to realize that much of the government's waste in spending in not due to anything the military personnel is doing wrong or illegal but because of the non-military bureaucracy that sets the rules and regulations for purchasing. The convoluted process that is in place for issuing contracts and making purchases just makes things more expensive because it restricts the sources for supplies. The explanation is that you have to buy items that meet "milspecs". In some situation that may be justified - aircraft parts, for example - because of the stress that is put on the equipment. In most cases though the "milspecs" can be met by top quality, off-the-shelf items that are less expensive - hammers, toilet seats, computers come to mind.

Who benefits from these purchase? Not the military. Not the taxpayer. Follow the money and it goes to the companies holding the government contracts who pay the lobbyists who make campaign contributions to THE POLITICIANS.

Out.

[schweiger_schmoke]

I heard that exact response to one of my friends...

Very close to that exact response...


Well thought out reply you had there. I just get the feeling many of these "responses" aren't very well thought out, or personal, or even unique, at all.

[mosesbotbol]

Joe Gibson - Rock On!!! Thanks the efforts!

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

Joe Gibson - Rock On!!! Thanks the efforts!

No thanks are necessary (just remember the RG button)

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by macjoe53

No thanks are necessary (just remember the RG button)

I can't figure out how to give (or take) ring gauge or add to someone's reputation. I know people have all the above to me and I would do the same, but don't know how???

[Budprince]

MacJoe! You Da Man!

Great reply to Landru. The points you made however will be completely lost on this communist (and that's precisely what the people who continually push legislation if this sort are!).

I may use exerpts from your response in some of my own corresponence to my reps.

Keep up the good fight brother!

[Simplified]

Nice read. It kind of gets me all jacked up so I am going to go put my head in the sand.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by Budprince

MacJoe! You Da Man!

Great reply to Landru. The points you made however will be completely lost on this communist (and that's precisely what the people who continually push legislation if this sort are!).

I may use exerpts from your response in some of my own corresponence to my reps.

Keep up the good fight brother!

Actually, she's a Socialist by definition because she consistently advocates taking away from people who have more and give it to those who refuses to work or who have less. Of course many Socialist support communist forms of government which tells people what to do and what they are allowed to have based on the fact that the Party is more knowledgeable than the people.

[Budprince]

Originally Posted by macjoe53

Actually, she's a Socialist by definition because she consistently advocates taking away from people who have more and give it to those who refuses to work or who have less. Of course many Socialist support communist forms of government which tells people what to do and what they are allowed to have based on the fact that the Party is more knowledgeable than the people.

I think you just made my point. While she, specifically, and people like her, more generally, propose socialist ideas, they truly believe they are the elite, and they continue to propose legislation that results in shared suffering rather than true advancement for any particular class except themselves. Look at the soviet union, and how they moved toward what they ultimately became. it clearly parallels much of what the political elite endorse today and more importantly have been for decades under the guise of "helping the poor" and being "progressive". They understand the value of icrimentalism, and so won't come out right and push for their ultimate goal - communism.

[IrishCorona]

THanks for the post....

These are Politicians we're talking about........lmfao. Come on guys, what do you honestly expect nowdays??

[coryj]

According to the Cigar Association, the average manufacturer’s sale price for popular-priced cigars, which make up 94% of the cigar market, is 30 cents.

Is she basing her whole argument on Phillie blunts or something or am I mistaken?