Posted by candy (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not a smoker and could care less if they do raise the taxes on cigs but why pick on one group of people if they sale them why keep taxing them to death? Just quit selling them and make money off someone elses problem...I have never heard of one driving down the road and killing someone with a cig! Give it a darn break...Tax liquor it kills more people than anything in the world and just quit selling smokes and see how to get taxes on something other than that...This is pure communism at its best...

Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 1:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It would be interesting to know what the budget is to keep the Governor's masion running, which includes the cost of meals, state dinner parties, etc. How expensive is the food he eats? I seriously doubt that he has bologne sandwiches or meatloaf. It may not make much of a dent in the state economy but it would be nice to know that he, too, was making some personal changes to help curb the state's financial crunch. If Legislature must raise taxes, let it be on things that are non-essential for life to the average Mississippian. Things like spirits, tobacco and casino gaming. Cut taxes on food. Texas does not charge tax on food, why should we? Some states also do not charge a state income tax. Mississippi is #50 in per capita income and has the highes national poverty level. This should account for something. Instead of sending billions of dollars to hundreds of foreign countris, it seems that Mississippi should be up for some federal aid. And I am not referring to hand-outs. That will only make things worse. I'm talking about federal investment in creating jobs of substance. Southwest Mississippi and the Delta are the most in need at this time. What are our local politicians doing to help this situation?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When the Democrat says "Our state needs a lower grocery tax and a higher cigarette tax. The move is politically and financially sound, not to mention the possible health implications.", it is not clear whether the Democrat is proposing new legislation to raise revenue or new legislation to promote health. It is clear that what the Democrat considers politically sound is at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

If the goal is to raise revenue, how about taxing newspapers at the same rate each pack of cigarettes is taxed. There must be more newspaper readers than smokers, so taxing newspapers more would likely raise more money than increasing the tax on cigarettes.

If the goal is to promote health, if government really has that right and responsibility, why not just deny any and all health care to smokers? If that law did not decrease the number of smokers, at least it would remove the burden of caring for smokers from the health care system, a reason often given as the need for cigarette taxes.

The fact is, neither a newspaper nor cigarette tax is needed. What is needed is for the people of Mississippi to decide once and for all if they wish to live in a socialist utopia, or a free republic.

The Democrat mentions "the budget". Well, how much money did the State of Mississippi take in from all sources last year? The budget represents only one area of the Comprehensive Financial Report the State of Mississippi prepares each year; the other parts of the report detail the excessive amounts taken in that were not put toward the current year's expenses, but salted away in various funds. In 2003, Mississippi had a surplus of 4.55 billion. View the report at http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-MS-S.... If you would like to see how much Mississippi took in for 2007, just google mississippi cafr 2007 and you can find that report and read it for yourself. The State has more than enough money for this year's budget without new taxes.

The only thing the State of Mississippi needs to do, along with all the other states, is to act more responsibily, to at least pretend that there are some powers that should be restricted from government, and to quit plucking the geese laying the golden eggs.

Marty Ellerbe

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No matter how they try and juggle the numbers, the fact is that the money is just not there--and not going to be there for years to come--so cutting state spending is imperative.

We are in for a long stretch of financial hardship. We have overspent for years and now it is time to pay the piper.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To start off with, I'M A SMOKER, and the truth about smoking is a fallacy. Everett C. Koop, Attorney General, was fired because he got on national tv and told the truth about it. Here is a short form of the truth. The tobacco companies pay their taxes on time each year. You can count on that. A year before all this hullabaloo started and the government warning of dire death if you smoke, there was a blight that hit the tobacco farmers causing great loss to their crops. Each year after paying their taxes, the tobacco farmers would send to the government an excess amount of money to be put in the treasury for what ever cause it was needed. Disaster fund, Medicare, education or whatever the need was. You are talking several million dollars above their tax amount. Free to the government to share with the people of America. Because of the blight that year their gift to the government was 5 million dollars short than usual. The tobacco growers was in dire straights that year but they ate their loss and refused to pass it on to the consumers. The government demanded the tobacco union turn over the 5 million dollars that they were short. Please understand what this government has done to the tobacco farmers. This was a gift. They did not have to give the government anything above their tax dollars but they did every year. This one year when they faced a deficit the government was putting a noose around their neck. There was no more money to give them. So the big brains in Washington got together and decided they would or suffer for it. That's when all this mess started. The government set out to ruin the tobacco farmers after warning them they would if they did not cough up that extra 5 million. Attorney Everett C Koop was fired when he went on national tv and told the truth about it. I saw this myself on tv the day he made his announcement. But what I did not see, but was told, that after he was fired he sued and had his name removed from the tobacco packages because he would not live with the lies the government was feeding the public.
Everett C Koop is a much bigger man than anyone who sits in the White House. He definitely is more honest, knowing he was going to be fired from a high paying job for telling the truth. And naturally this opened the door for all the goody two shoes to jump on board and criticize the smokers. It is nothing but government propanganda.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I advidly will not endorse any tax hike on tobacco, not because I smoke, but I feel they have done enough damage to the farmers who want only to work and earn a living by legal means just as you and I. I have smoked for 50 years, have no health problems and have had no reason to see a doctor in several years. I thank God everday for my good health. I also was raised in a house full of smokers. My mother never smoked but died of cancer complications at 89, (kidney) after being cancer free for the last seven years of her life. My sister being a two pk. daily smoker died at age 84. I may kick the bucket today but I can say I had a full life and enjoyed every cig. I have smoked. Why should I be punished for paying more tax than others who do not smoke, but enjoy the luxury of autos, cell phones, yearly vac. etc. Stop the government waste and that will put money in it's pocket. The citizen's deserve a break.

Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The US governement is BROKE. They have NO-NONE-ZERO-ZIP money. There are only IOUs. We only manage to run the government today with BORROWED money that has to be paid back.

Again, the US Governement is FLAT BROKE.

The only way out of this is to raise taxes and cut spending--HARD. That means no social programs, no highway money, no pork barrel projects, no food stamps, no welfare, no new airports, no river levees, no farming subsidies. Nothing.

So tighten you belts folks. We are in for rough ride.

Posted by DrunkenMonkey (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the federal government would reduce its bureaucracy (like eliminating the bloated blasphemy that the Department of Homeland Security is), would cut back on unnecessary spending by way of earmarks and corperate welfare, and scale back defense rates to their constitutional limits, tax rates would plummet.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every time I turn around there is some plot to pick on the smokers. Sure smoking is bad for your health, but so is fast food. If you must tax something to help with the budget and you want it to help to make Mississippians healthy, tax fast food. It is doing way more harm than the cigarettes. I would like to see which one kills more people in Mississippi! I am a smoker and I do not understand why I should have to pay more in taxes for my bad habit. How would you like it if it were on one of your habits. Sure it's cigarettes now, but what's next, alcohol,coffee, caffiene, chocolate, or even little debbie cakes. Who say's which bad habit is the worst of the group?

Posted by DrunkenMonkey (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mississippi's Office of Alcoholic Beverage Control already marks up prices on alcohol 27.5 percent.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on January 23, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrunkenMonkey, lol, thank you. With a name like that you have to know what you're talking about. lol... Luv it. I think the junk food should be the next thing to be hit. After all the American's appear to be the most obese people in the world.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on January 27, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taxes do not need to be raised! We need better spending habits and we need to prioritize expenditures and keep the value of the $'s up. Of course this includes our foreign policy also! We also need to think of the USA first and along with our states. States would act accordingly, I hope!

Posted by obamayamama (anonymous) on January 28, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is the good of cigarette smoking? It has been proven that it devastates the human lungs causing cancer, but people still continue to do it. If taxes are raised and people still pay to enjoy them, would they still buy them? Of course. After all, something good should come from cigarettes.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 4:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, obamayamama, what about this? As long as we are caring for others, see how they are thinking of doing it up in Jackson:

HOUSE BILL NO. 282
An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:
SECTION 1.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.