Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsMonday, October 1, 2007 10:36 AM CDT
Comments Comments (126) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Poor smokers would pay for kids' health bill
By Charles Babington
Associated Press
Advertisement

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education.

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.

All the better, they say, if higher cigarette taxes discourage smoking.

"I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview Friday, noting that the plan would not add to the deficit. "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking."

Congress probably will revisit the cigarette tax issue soon because President Bush has pledged to veto the proposed $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The decade-old program helps families buy medical coverage if their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Bush has proposed a more modest growth for the program, and both political parties seem inclined to pay for it through a tax on an unpopular group, cigarette smokers.

By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.

The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate.

Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non-Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women.

The demographics of smoking and taxation received scant attention during last week's House and Senate debates, perhaps because many Democrats and Republicans agree that cigarettes are the best target for tax increase if the insurance program were to grow. A few lawmakers, however, took a swing.

"I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said during the House debate. "But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., defended putting the burden of expanded medical care on smokers.

"The tobacco tax is a great way to pay for it," he said, "because if you tax people who are smoking and they smoke less, then we have less health problems."

Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., did not buy that logic. "To propose funding a growing program with a declining revenue source is, I would submit, irresponsible fiscal policy," he said.

If the federal cigarette tax nears $1 per pack, smokers in many states will pay hefty sums into government coffers unless they kick their habit. On top of the federal tax, New Jersey levies a $2.57 per pack tax on cigarettes, followed by Rhode Island at $2.46.

California is near the middle, at 87 cents a pack. Three states tax cigarettes at less than 30 cents per pack. South Carolina is the lowest at 7 cents.

Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris USA, based in Richmond, Va., said a steep federal tax increase could accelerate the national decline in smoking to the point that the insurance would have to find other revenue sources.

The average U.S. price of a pack of cigarettes has risen by 80 cents since 1999, Phelps said, largely because of state tax increases. State and federal governments received more than $21 billion in cigarette excise taxes in the 2006 budget year, he said, "so we think this trend is unfair to adults who smoke and to retailers who sell tobacco products."

In Congress, these groups receive little sympathy. But some lawmakers say voters should know the details of the insurance program's proposed funding structure.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who spoke against the bill in last week's debate, said: "The headline ought to read, 'Smokers in America to pay for middle-class welfare.'"

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 126 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

well you know wrote on Oct 12, 2007 3:31 PM:

" If you have job then you do not qualify!! Funny huh! You can not say oh i can't afford my health insurence for my family, could you help pay it? Not even just all of it but help out with some of it, I mean why do I deserve LESS help from the tax dollars I pay in just as much as anyone else? why? because I have a job to pay in to the program so I do not deserve the use of the program!? anyone else think this is rather silly? I don't mind the fact that we help those less fourtunet. But those getting the benifit of the programs paid for by other ppl's money should manditory have a job, and get drug and alchol tested weekly~ i think that is fair, lets not make it so only the ppl getting help are the ones that refuse to help themselves!! "

ONLY???????? wrote on Oct 12, 2007 2:58 PM:

" I love the comment "I ONLY get a medical card" Only? is that all? and that's why? becuase you can't afford your employers medical insurance? WHO CAN? I pay $300 a month for medical insurance for my family! you think I can 'afford' that? heck no, but I do it! The reason the rest of us pay so much for medical insurance is because of you 'I ONLY get a medical card' people!! "

Mike wrote on Oct 12, 2007 1:32 PM:

" Those people who are in favor of ban smoking,ban internet gambling need to be punished for their daily activities worst that I am punished that I can not have gambling business online and hire milions of people smokers prefered due to current antismoking situation. "

TO: A freind from G.O.M. wrote on Oct 12, 2007 1:12 PM:

" I have re-read the posts and the only people on your "inside joke" seems to be you. I would call that less of an inside joke and more of a last ditch attempt at holding on to your upper hand. Sorry to have rained on your gloating parade (in case you are as dense as you seem I AM being facetious.) In case you are interested I do know the name of a good doctor that could remove that stick from your self righteous butt. But try to have a good weekend none the less. "

A Friend wrote on Oct 12, 2007 12:25 PM:

" I don't know if someone was trying to parody me, but if they were, thank you; I thought it was funny. They both make me laugh because they take themselves seriously and they haven't figured out they are the object of a lot of inside jokes here (go back and reread the posts - they are hilarious). They remind me of Gomer and Barney. I guess that makes me Helen Crump. I can hear Floyd saying Oooh Oooh Andy, I think you need a haircut. How far is Mayberry from Bloomington? Hee Haw. "

oh wrote on Oct 12, 2007 11:32 AM:

" i get it now! LOL "

TO; A friend from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Oct 12, 2007 9:42 AM:

" Hate to say this (no I don't) but you're wrong yet AGAIN!!! Although I would like to meet JD for we do have a lot of the same political views. He is currently attending ISU ( as was evident in the dress code article.) I have never set foot in an ISU classroom. He is a Libertarian, I tend to vote Republican. I work at a Financial Institute, i don't know what he does for a living. But like all smoking ban proponents seems you really no nothing. (does anyone remember the Tim Johnson ads when Mike Keller was running against him? I ask because the commercials line was "Wrong AGAIN, Mike." That's how I feel ANYTIME a "friend" opens her mouth. :-) "

ok wrote on Oct 11, 2007 8:37 AM:

" i think i know who the mule is, but what comments are from the deliquent? "

A Fiend wrote on Oct 11, 2007 3:35 AM:

" I have concluded that the Donkey and the Juvenile Delinquent are one in the same. After examining their posts it is obvious that between them thay have have half a brain. When they meet the scarecrow they can go both ways. (watch the movie, it is the best line). "

A Friend wrote on Oct 10, 2007 6:14 PM:

" I can't help but laugh evertime the donkey falls for it. When will he ever learn? Wanna bet he does it again? Betcha. He just does't get it. Will someone explain it to him? Hee Haw! "

mikes idea wrote on Oct 10, 2007 9:04 AM:

" i second that! "

Mike wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:52 AM:

" People inside the senate are ill.They do the worst things for AMERICANS in last 15 years.AMERICANS start to grow your personal tobbacco in your yard and it is time for revolution before you and up wprking for 1 Euro/Months. Non smokers need to be taxed for their daily activities such as going to restroom. "

EX SMOKER.. wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:19 PM:

" I think children's healthcare is important, but this is just a bandaid. I just quit smoking after over 20 years. I work full time in healthcare and I did know better. But still smoked, quit because of cost. I see people who smoke 1-2 packs daily, who come in as patients. They say they can't afford their medication- but sure can afford to smokes. I have said this to them, but they still they want sympathy for their current state. I think making cigs. more expense is good- maybe kids won't start smoking in the first place. But I am sick of paying for all the people with self-inflicted health issues-drinking heavily, smoking heavy, and eating to the point your too fat to move or care for yourself. As for families who work and can't afford insurance, use the medical card -that to me is money well spent by the goverment.Adults who don't work and wait for handouts-don't deserve anything. "

TO:hands up/hands out wrote on Oct 9, 2007 3:30 PM:

" and yet here is another spoiled self appointed know it all! Not everyone is sucking off the governments teet as you put it. And if the Government would get off its ass, and do a lil work you would see welfar drop tremendously! Start helping those who want to help themselves instead of taking care of all of Chicago's rejects!! And was logic a factor in deciding to open your mouth or did you just want to PROVE that maybe you parents should have thought twice before BREEDING!!!!! loser! not to meniton rude jack ass! "

hands up/ hands out wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:39 PM:

" whatever... we're becoming a society of dependants sucking at the government teet. Were costs a factor in deciding to breed or was it somehting that you thought you'd figure out later or even worse let others take care of your issues? "

Taxing hum......... wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:51 PM:

" they raise the price of tabacco every few weeks. as well as gas. why not have it go to a good cause instead of government pockets! we all pay for the welfair some of us have kids some of us don't. and then there are some of us who have never paid in to it, cause they have always been on it! saying that you should go have kids to get the money back? well i have paid in to it for years so should i get that money back now that i have kids? not going to happen just like you getting money back for having kids. YOU probably make to much. welfar was set up to help the poor. they are rewarded for having more kids. but not everyone using/or has used this system is abusing it! there are some people who work very hard and could benifit from the help but they will never get it, the system was not set up to help them! who are you to say anything to those people you know nothing of their situation. come on! "

TO: A "friend" from Gov't opressed Mule wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:41 PM:

" ow! you got me! ouch please stop, these "attempts to get my goat" (I guess you call them that.) are too much for me. UNCLE! ow, you win. I'm sorry I called you a spoiled brat who can't put together a coherent thought other than to attack someone. ooh, wait. I didn't call you that? I guess I was just thinking it. "

ok wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:37 PM:

" so i have worked since i was aprox, 13 i am now 28 i did not have children until i was 20 so for aprox 7 years i paid for other ppls kids so doesn't that mean i should get some of that money back now to help raise the kids that i have? well of course i wont', i have a job. i dont' want to depend on the state so i keep my job i want my kids to eat so i keep my job. don't i deserve to also smoke if i choose? why should the same government be able to tell me that they WON'T help me with child care or food, even though i have low income for a family of three, but continually raise the price of smokes and gas,, and they can also tell me that i can't smoke in a bar? i think maybe some ppl should not get help from state or government and those agencies should think about the ppl that is set up to help. some ppl would like a hand UP that don't smoke crack or sleep till noon because of no job! "

all I'm saying wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:15 PM:

" is that I am growing tired of taxes being raised for children I didn't want nor had. I chose not to breed yet I'm funding children. Maybe I should have kids and get some of this tax money. I grow tired of the increase per child so that there is in fact a benefit to breeding. "

sounds like wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:05 PM:

" lets not make this an issue that has everyone attacking each other, like most of the articals printed by this paper cause. this is a political issue for the ppl who make the big bucks to straighten out, and as far as these many opinions they go no where! The big wigs are the ones to make all choices for us so sit back relax they will take care of you. hopefully better then you would take care of your neighbor~ life is no longer as easy as it was (as far as THIS subject goes) but ppl just are not as nice these days, they would rather a child starve or not be born then to work on the "community to raise a family" ideals of the long ago~ "

Sounds like wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:05 PM:

" maybe we should just take away the right to reproduce if by the age of 18 you do not have a job paying more then oh i don't know say 150k? what a joke, 90% of population would not have kids if they waited till they could "afford" them so these comments are uncalled for!"back in the day" of farmers and miners being the majority if you could not afford food or milk they helped each other, if one family was not doing so good the other families helped life was a great deal different back them ppl actually cared about each other. and look at how that turned out. they had bigger families and less help from "government funded programs" "

i hope part 2 wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:15 AM:

" we already take away rights to a smoke when you want (don't get me started on how unhealty it is for other ppl to breath car garbage and global warming we could bann other things there is a reason ppl that are 80 smoke w/out being sick they live is underpopulated areas, less garbage in the air) you ppl on here are just sick, hateful ppl . "breeders" does not include any and every person with out high income having kids and its wrong for you to lump everyone together like that, lets look at how many ppl are low income and take care of their own kids, how well behaved they are v.s. how many african americans sell drugs and get state help to feed their kids while driving new cars. but that just don't seem fair does it? HUH!!!! "

I hope wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:15 AM:

" all of you talking about Breeders shouldbe so very ashamed of yourself! If the government could get there crap straight there would not be a problem. If you look at the rules laid out for some of the "help" programs its will tell you straight that if you are trying to help yourself/family they wont' help you! If you have a steady job they want nothing to do with you. With the cost of living YOU would almost have to have some kind of office job such as SF to aford kids so lets do away with ppl that are not RICH having any children at all. "

to those who get hand outs.. wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:54 AM:

" just because you CAN talk does not mean YOU SHOULD! some ppl needs a hand up not a hand out!!! "

not everyone wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:53 AM:

" not every one who CAN recieve help DO and not everyone who starts out with a husband and family plan on not having the other partner there to HELP take care of the money the child/children will need! so nice of you to lump us all together, if i could get help i would, however like it was said before you have to be a no job having, crack head to get help and unfourtunetly i have a JOB and i take care of MY kids i dont' expect you to do it for me, however with SOME help(if it were not given to the ppl who should be in jail) my kids would have an easier life. not all of us work at s.f.! thanks jerk!!! "

dumb wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:50 AM:

" i believe that if your prone to cancer you WILL get it no matter what you do! first off, and second, there are deaths every year from DUI'S AND no body is giving them EXTRA tax OR banning them. ALL the gov. is doing is taking away rights and single out one set of ppl "

those with hands out... wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:09 PM:

" just becasue you can breed doesn't mean you should. People need to plan for their child's expenses and fund them themselves. Like education..oh wait I pay for that too "

Same for WIC wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:10 PM:

" I go to the grocery store and see people buying cigerettes with cash, and thier milk, cheese, cereal, etc... with WIC coupons. doesn't really seem fair to those of us paying for our groceries. BUT, I guess kids can't go without food so we all have to pay for it. and God knows that it's not the cigerretes that will be done without due to lack of money "

To all who think that everyone abuses the system wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:22 PM:

" Just to let all you stuck up people know one thing. I have not recieved Link Card, or Cash Assistance at all. But I do however recieve the medical card for me and my child, and my unborn child. I pay for everything for her, clothes, food, toys, everything but her medical. But, my husband and I get up and go to work everyday and pay taxes just like you all do. I pay for my medical card by working. I am not just sitting on my butt being supported. I also support my mother to. I smoke, it is my personal choice. My smoking does not interfere with things I might by my child. My husband and I cannot afford insurance, we have tried. I would rather be on the medical card that way if my baby needs a prescription I cannot afford she will get it. You all should look at everyone's situation before you judge. Do not tell me that I do not have the right to "BREED", because I need medical assitance. Because guess what you aint paying for everybody. "

We all pay the cigarette tax wrote on Oct 6, 2007 2:00 PM:

" I saw a news report that the largest number of smokers are disabled persons. Most of these are on government supported disability, so figure it up. We pay taxes to give them money to live on, they in turn pay high cigarette taxes in order to cover health care expenses for children. Since we pay taxes to give them money doesn't this really mean that we're the ones paying the cigarette tax that pays for the health care? Sounds like the state robs us to pay for the health care in the long run. Granted some people need / deserve disability, but others cheat the system with phony, ridiculous disabilities. I know a guy who never wanted to work, he attempted (1/2 heartedly) suicide twice & now gets disability because he's mentally unable to work (& he smokes). Now he sits on his but & gets paid for it, which is what he wanted in the first place. Most people would have been probably been put away, not paid for this kind of stupidity. "

To A Friend from Deputy Dog wrote on Oct 5, 2007 6:32 PM:

" I get it!! "

A Friend wrote on Oct 5, 2007 3:57 PM:

" Got him again!!! "

TO; A friend from Gov't opressed Mule wrote on Oct 5, 2007 1:50 PM:

" What are you talking about? You never said anything to me in this post? I believe your attempts to make it look like you "had" me are just pathetic attempts to cover up the fact that you were and have been again, put in your place. Thanks and have a GREAT day :-) "

to To: If you wrote on Oct 2, 2007 1:01 PM: wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:33 AM:

" spoken like a breeder. I have an idea let's permit child birth. That way if you can't fund you can keep your knees together "

Juan Roberto Sanchez Guitierra wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:22 AM:

" I say we send the smokers to fight the war in Iraq! "

JJ wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:32 PM:

" This non smoker says ha ha to all those smokers who love to say it. You were lied to and used by lobbyist and politicians. And, fellow Americans paid for your ignorance. Here's a little truth and it's posted here is parts. Read and learn and hopefully start complaining that you were duped. "

JJ wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:29 PM:

" A of Part One THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS "We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS. "

JJ wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:28 PM:

" B of Part One "We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance. "Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized. "

JJ wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:25 PM:

" Part Two "Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples. "For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold. "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required. "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. "

JJ wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:24 PM:

" Part Three "At the lower end of the scale in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour? "

JJ wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:24 PM:

" Part Four "Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible. "It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat." "

A Friend wrote on Oct 4, 2007 5:24 PM:

" Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah. It is too easy to get his goat (mule). He falls for it everytime; doesn't know he is being had. What a pity. "

washington idiots wrote on Oct 4, 2007 12:39 PM:

" Let's see, this bill is to expand healthcare coverage for children....Smokers typically have higher health costs due to smoking....so because and adult smoker has more health issues we'll tax smoking more to pay for a child's health insurance.....When did these children become smokers? Its an unfair tax burden placed upon a specific class of people (smokers). If they really want to raise revneue how about an alcohol tax. Much more money in drinking than in smoking. "

To: What a joke wrote on Oct 3, 2007 12:05 PM:

" I agree, although it was a little difficult to follow your post. Let's take it a step further. People can die from morbid obesity, so let's let the fat people pay for the health insurance for kids. It's basically the same premise. "

what a joke wrote on Oct 3, 2007 11:27 AM:

" i know several people in their 80's in the state of kentucky who have been smoking like chimneys for years and years and don't even have emphasema. not saying that smoking doesn't mean you won't get cancer. but why can't we put the blame where it belongs. why do so many people who live in major cities get lung cancer or other cancers who never smoked? but when a smoker in a city gets it it is from smoking. the person who never smoked they blame it on second hand. sure sure. taxation without representation. that is what i see. let's tax booze more and see what teddy kennedy will do with that. "

TY wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:21 AM:

" Maybe if you smokers would have complained to the right people in the first place all this wouldn't be happening. I used to sell cigarettes. I worked in a couple grocery stores where the cigs would be relatively inexpensive. Also worked in convenience stores where they are more expensive. And always when a tax would go up or when the lawsuits drove the price up the smokers would go yelling at a store clerk. The stores have nothing to do with it. Finally some of the smokers have woken up and realize this but its way to late now. "

To: If you wrote on Oct 2, 2007 1:01 PM:

" If your commenting here, then who's guarding hell? "

Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Oct 2, 2007 11:39 AM:

" I love the fact that I am "responsible" for higher health care costs yet, I have had and paid for insurance for the past 7 years and have gone to the doctor once in the same time period. So how am I responsible for the rising insurance costs? And if this is to stop smokers where is the taxes that are paying for these programs going to come from if the initiative succeeds? Ooh what a slippery slope we are descending. Is it just me or does our current day gov't remind anyone else of KING GEORGE. VIVA LA REVOLUTION! "

if you wrote on Oct 2, 2007 8:03 AM:

" can't afford kids don't have them. I'm so tired of paying for breeders. "

Sad Day wrote on Oct 1, 2007 6:20 PM:

" I am a smoker, and have been for about 23 years. During this whole time, I have had hardly any illnesses, even colds or flu. Meanwhile, I have seen people who would be judged 'healthy' running to the doctor for stubbed toes, colds, and one even for a paper cut. It is not people habits which drives up health care costs, it is the mentality that since it is covered, it is okay to go to the doctors for minor things which the doctor can not help with, but cost the health agencies money which results in higher heath costs. Of course, no one talk about this because it is much easier to blame everyone else. "

To :Travel Agent wrote on Oct 1, 2007 4:53 PM:

" You should take your own advice. As a believer in freedom, I will not lay down for fascism or socialism. Freedom is the ability to do as you so see fit as long as you are not physicaly harming(beating, shooting, rapeing) you, not stealing from you, nor commiting fraud. They have your eutopia in the middle east, so why don't you get out of my country, while I fight to defend it. "

To: Bf wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:28 PM:

" So, basically, you don't care about actual facts and backing up such sensational statements - just because of a bias you feel for the vice. And then your retort is to basically say, I don't care what science, statistics, or real facts say, I just want to be right for the sake of being right because I hate smoking. Nice. Way to be mature and further your "cause". "

To: To: To: Why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:26 PM:

" Actually, I'm not a smoker. I find second-hand smoke to be vile. However, I'd never judge another simply for having a vice. We all have them, most are just as bad if not worse than smoking. I don't have a problem with this bill because I'm "pro-smoking", as you would suggest. I have a problem with it because it exploits an entire demographic for it's vice. Then nutty politicians have the nerve to say, "maybe it'll help them quit" They are banking on others' vices, right after this huge movement to ban smoking - now they're counting on smokers to keep smoking to pass this bill, and so no money will have to come out of the pockets of the people that can afford it. If everybody is really as afraid of second-hand smoke as they say they are, then shouldn't they be afraid of drunk drivers and belligerent drunks as well? Since fatty food is bad for you, how about taxing that? Let the fat people pay for this bill, so the people that have money don't have to spend any of it. "

New Age Thinker wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:20 PM:

" How's this for a concept-quit smoking, take the money you would have spent on cigs, and put it in a jar to pay for your kid's health care. You had em, you pay for em! Here is another concept-no link card or social programs if you smoke, drink, or use drugs. You take a test just like I have to do to keep my employment to recieve your "entitlements" If you pop positive you can forget about your check. If you have the money for booze, drugs and/or cigs, you don't need mine! "

Non-Smoker wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:16 PM:

" Well. If health care for children is important and we are going to pay for it using taxes on cigarettes I guess if I don't start smoking I hate children. Please recommend some brands/types for a newbie please! "

Sox 05 wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:11 PM:

" To To Ken: That may have been the worst effort I have ever read at justification of a smoking habit. Do you drive also? So you will be taxed twice. Nice point. "

Sox 05 wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:02 PM:

" To lol: exactly right. "

JOE wrote on Oct 1, 2007 2:01 PM:

" Sorry, POLITICIAN. Feel better now? Hope you get plenty of exercise with your thumbs to burn off that cheeseburger and fries. "

bf wrote on Oct 1, 2007 1:56 PM:

" I do not care what the insurance form says, everyone pays higher premiums because some people enjoy the taste of smoke. "

To: To why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 1:13 PM:

" So tell me how do you know he drinks from his post? I agree with him/her. I do not feel he is condensending for feeling that smoking is bad. There is so much proof how can you say otherwise. I hope the taste is worth destroying your lungs. I guess I don't feel sorry for you but the family you leave behind. "

LittleMac wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:59 PM:

" To: " To: To: Why": Well said. Smokers pay dearly for their habit. And then pay more for Health Insurance. Now, if we all were to pay the true cost of our bad habits, we'd experience an embarrassment of riches. No, the prima donnas don't have anything else to worry about. Except, perhaps, how YOU live your life. "

TO: A Friend from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:47 PM:

" You see, it's comments like yours that cause people to "attack" your posts, then you try to blame them in other posts that they are being malicious. Why don't you look in a mirror? "

Travel Agent wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:44 PM:

" Once again, I reiterate, which means say again, for all the uneducated smokers, and the government protesters, most of whom really don't care about the smoking tax, but use it as another platform to gripe about the government, we have multiple international flights leaving almost every half hour, to other countries. We here at STHU Travel are more than willing to set you up with a one-way ticket to any destination you'd like, and since you won't be returning, we can even express you through the usual security measures. Have a nice life, and thank you for helping with the overpopulation situation. "

No substance Joe wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:37 PM:

" I'm so happy that you agree with Fred. My life can continue. What's a POLITIANS? "

JOE wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:11 PM:

" I agree with FRED, but lets also include a tax on video games and maybe a tax on POLITIANS! Lets start hitting them in the pocketbook so they can share the feeling. "

To: To: To: Why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:00 PM:

" Actually, that's not true. When I filled out my insurance form for my new job, there was a chart that outlined the costs of insurance for One Person, One Person who is a smoker (more expensive), One Person and Dependent, One person who is a smoker with a dependent, Family, and Family with smoker(s), etc. People that don't smoke don't have to pay the higher price. The smokers do pay, not only with their health but out of pocket too. Your insurance doesn't go up because of smokers, it's the smokers that have to pay extra. Quit being such a drama queen. I'm a non-smoker but I have to say, some non-smokers who seem to be up on a soapbox are getting a little nutty, with wide-sweeping dramatic comments that are obviously not backed up by any real scientific facts. All to get other sensationalist-activists all riled up and ready to burn at the stake any "evil" smoker they can get their hands on. Come on now, don't you people have anything real to worry about? Or are you just taking a break from commenting on the Pit Bull story? "

TO: CHUCKIE wrote on Oct 1, 2007 11:54 AM:

" It is funny, but I can usually look at a person and tell whether or not they are stupid. TO LOL. They are going to tax you. "

To: To why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 11:17 AM:

" Everyone pays higher insurance, both medical and property because of smokers like yourself. So because you enjoy the taste of something we all have to pay both financially and physically. I am sure your cash crop will benefit you greatly. You don't know anything about me as far as how green I live. So don't be jumping to conclusions because I feel sorry for you for smoking. "

to Carlton: wrote on Oct 1, 2007 11:11 AM:

" from a fellow Farmer City resident, leave this town please!!! I think I would hate to be your neighbor. Did you even investigate this town before you moved here? I'm sure your neighbors have lived in this town long before your $250,000 home. Get out of town or deal with our town! "

Sarcastro wrote on Oct 1, 2007 11:02 AM:

" Think this article could be any more slanted? "

To: Ken wrote on Oct 1, 2007 10:58 AM:

" Yeah, because we do not want to have to put up with people like you . SS will not be around in an other 20 years anyways, with the irresponsible people that are running this nation and bilking trillions into other country's while putting little back into the homeland, other than restrictions on it's people. You and others just do not get it. Soon every choice will be made for you and if you call that freedom have at it, cause I would rather be gone anyways long before I allow you or the government to live my life for me. It's about a calculated risk, nothing different than every time you turn the key to your car you take a risk that you could die in an accident, I choose to get pleasure from inhaling a smoke that has calming effects and I happen to enjoy the taste and smell. You choose to drive. Now since both have the same effects shouldn't you be taxed as well? After all pollution from the burning and production of gasoline can be directly proven to affect health and is also known to cause cancer. Point fingers but look with in, first. "

How about wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:53 AM:

" Taxing booze! Teddy K. could fund about half a dozen kids! "

Geez wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:42 AM:

" Well, I USED to vote Democratic. Of course, I will jump off a tall building before I ever vote Republican, so I guess I'll have to start voting independent. Rue the day.... "

To: Why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:39 AM:

" I feel sorry for you and your need to condescend to others who are even a little different than you. So what if somebody ELSE smokes and hurts their OWN lungs. It's no different than you popping somebody ELSE'S prescription pills and drinking all day to the point that your liver starts to do the cha-cha. There, there, now. You aren't any better than anyone else. "

We? wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:37 AM:

" "I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview Friday. We? I must have a turd in my pocket because I KNOW Sen. Harry Reid doesn't have to spend a dime on this to make it work. Nobody who can afford will have to spend a penny. Instead, they exploit the same smokers they and people like them have spent so much time trying to ban. He goes on to comment, "maybe this will make people quit smoking." Yeah right. He hopes to God that doesn't happen or else he and his official friends will have to look at another avenue to fund this idiotic plan. "

Get rid of insurance wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:34 AM:

" America was fine before the concept that "everyone needs insurance". In actuallity they have caused this problem by driving up the cost of healthcare. If we got rid of insurance all together the Americans could afford health care on their own. Besides, how often does insurance companies really meet their obligations without a legal fight? Very few times folks. Insurance companies are just another shineing example of big buiseness manipulating the individuals. Also, for all those who think this tax is great because you hate smokers so much, why do you want them to save you again? If you hate somebody, then you have no right to ask them to help you out AGAIN because you live outside your means. They are poor because of addiction, whats your addiction that you need their help again as you spit on them when their backs are turned? "

Duh!! wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:33 AM:

" "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking." Wait a minute...if people quit smoking, then who would pay for it? They NEED people to keep spending their money on cigarettes or they would have to >gasp< start taking money from people who actually have it!! Which of course would mean that most of our officials would lose all monetary backing - so smoke up people! That's the only way for this poorly though out "plan" to work! "

ken wrote on Oct 1, 2007 9:05 AM:

" Smokers save the government money because smokers have a shorter life span,therefore the govt pays out less in social security benefits and medicare during his life time. Many smokers never receive social security or medicare. A study about 5 years ago said that smokers saved the govt about 39 billion dollars per year. "

To: Why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:56 AM:

" We smoke because we chose to, just like you chose to turn on your light switch knowing that billions of tons of pollution is spewed into our Earth for you to be-able to just turn on that light bulb. We smokers smoke because we can because we enjoy the taste the smell and annoying you little cry baby's. Either way I will never pay for this as I purchase all my tobacco related items out of another country and am currently growing my own tobacco strain. You chose to use a laser printer, cook red meats, burn oil, burn coal, burn wood, make toxic chemicals and use them, you continue to deforest the land, I chose to smoke and so long as you are infringing on my lungs with your pollution, I say everyone has the right to infringe on yours just like everyone else is with other pollutants........... "

br549 wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:48 AM:

" a program to benefit all the people should be paid for by all the people, isn't that fair? what's so hard to understand about that? i'm all for health care for everyone but it should not be funded by any one group, and no, i don't smoke. "

Fatso wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:25 AM:

" "why": I agree. I also feel sorry for those who have that terrible addiction. But not so sorry that I'm not willing to feed off their addiction. Anyone out there who's addicted to anything, please let us know. So we can, in true American fashion, pile on. "

why wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:03 AM:

" Why is it that any article dealing with smoking generates comments faster than any of the others? I can't believe anyone smokes at all. What a waste. I feel sorry for all of you with this terrible addiction. "

to Good Start wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:54 AM:

" spoken like a true socialist. What I would like to know is who is going to test foods you mentioned and determine if they have ingested hormones? Well that would be a governent job, which means more beauracracy and larger government. When are you pinheads going to realize that anything the government touches turns to trash? You sounded a lot like Joseph Stalin with your remarks and to prove a point let me leave you with this thought. You trust government workers to test food products? These same government workers who let millions of tainted toys, pet food, and even human food into the country from China? I will take my chances with cigarettes and my own choices of what to ingest. You must have your own farm to provide food based on everything you want government to control. "

Doesn't say that wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:08 AM:

" The bill expands the definition of poor children to be "kids" in their twenties whose parents make $75-80,000. Those are the ones for whom this additional tax will provide healthcare. "

It must be mandatory wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:03 AM:

" to be stupid to hold office. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can tell this has not been thought through and every angle covered. This will be a desaster. This is just to apease the upper crust who always complain about paying for the poor. This is to take the light off the elected who get free health care for themselves and their families. We all pay for the free health care for the elected and their families. "

Pat wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:03 AM:

" Isn't it strange. The Republican taxes tacked onto cigerettes over these past years have been praised as a way to promote better health for the poor misguided smoker. Suddenly when the Democrats go to that same trough for more it's pity time for the low income smoker. Do they actually think the American people are dumb enough to buy this double standard? Oh Yeah, they are, they bought that lying propaganda now for 2 elections. "

FRED wrote on Oct 1, 2007 6:43 AM:

" Let's tax fast food, that's what the little rugrats eat all the time then they can help support their own healthcare!!! "

Golffan wrote on Oct 1, 2007 5:50 AM:

" Apparently, Rep Jack Kingston of Ga. is one of the few who 'gets it'. Hilary banned smoking in the White House and now tells us ( Aug. 27, '07) it's possible to further limit smoking by increasing taxes and prices for cigarettes. And, as the 'thinking' goes, ( like here in Illinois) as smoking rates go DOWN, revenue will go UP. To pay for Insurance for non sinners and others who don't live the way she thinks they should. A triangulated line of 'thinking' borrowed, I guess, from the Taliban. Nancy Pelosi ( get this ) is praying for our President. Who, as we've all been told , doesn't care about kids' health care. A line of simplistic 'thinking' which, apparently, also demonstrates that the Democrats believe in killing our kids in Iraq. Since they've voted for every war spending measure " The Decider" has put in front of them. This would all be hilarious. Were it not for the fact that soon we'll be voting. To exchange one mob of toothy grinned fanatics with another. "

CAT wrote on Oct 1, 2007 5:44 AM:

" This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in awhile. Lets just kick the people while their down. Prejudicial at best. Unconstitutional, I would think so. It is not up to one group to support childrens heath care, although I am for helping that out. Where is their cash support for this program? What were they smoking when they came up with this one?? "

I love my country but it's government scares me to death! wrote on Oct 1, 2007 5:23 AM:

" Instead of forcing the smokers (who are fewer than before) fund the healthcare bill for children, how about forcing down rates on health care including prescriptions? This will help everyone, children & seniors especially. Oh wait, that would make sense so we best not do that. By the way, I don't smoke but my brother & his wife do outside their home. They're low income with 6 kids & this is their way of relieving stress because with 6 kids, they can't afford to do anything else. Cigarettes are still cheaper than going out for dinner, a movie & the cost of a babysitter for them. Why aren't we finding a way to tax the higher income & closing some of their loopholes to get out of paying? Our country broke free from England because of taxes, yet look at all the taxes we pay now. What's happening to our freedom & our rights? "

notallthewaytotheleftdemocrat wrote on Oct 1, 2007 5:12 AM:

" awesome...government attempting to improve on prohibition through extreme taxing. they figured out that alcohol wasn't the way to go so now they're blaming cigarettes for the woes of the country. perhaps they should be looking at their appropriations and spending bills for the answer. there's usually enough "pork barrel" in each bill passed to fund federal healthcare for every man, woman and child. oh, i'm sorry. that wouldn't fly, would it....how can you get re-elected if you haven't bought the election through favors....sheesh "

Commercial brand wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:09 AM:

" I've stopped smoking the regular commercial smokes for two reasons. a. the tabacco in cigeretts are not the "cancer cause" but rather the chemicals in the cigerette. These same chemicals are in all our food, doesn't matter if you eat out or cook at home. b. if you have native-american ancestors you can buy from the reservation a completly natural cigette without paying these bogus taxes. So if you want to smoke, buy TRUE American and buy from the res. Finally to all those brave souls who redicule me for smoking on here I invite to say something when you are out in society so that maybe we can engage in an conversation of quiting smoking vs. fascism. I invite this dialog purely to remind you that because you disagree with my lifes choices, you have no right to regulate it as long as I'm not physicaly beating or rapeing you. Thank you, and down with the police state. "

Confused X2 wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:04 PM:

" Raising taxes will not hurt the economy. That is what the Democrats say. Raising taxes does NOT encourage less spending. That is what the Democrats say. Raising taxes on Cigarettes will encouage people to smoke less. That is what the Democrats say. Any questions? "

Confused wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:03 PM:

" Healthcare for children is important! That is what the Democrats say. Getting people to stop smoking is important! That is what the Democrats say. So, the Democrats are proposing we fund important healthcare for children with a tax on cigarettes in hopes that we will encourage people to stop smoking. Will these idiots explain how we pay for it if people do stop smoking? "

OGS Jeeze Louise wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:11 PM:

" Tax & spend...typical democrats. The COST of health care is OUT OF CONTROL. This of course is due to the medical industry and big pharma lobbying congress. I remember when we used to be able to afford health insurance before it got out of control. It wasn't that long ago...10, maybe 12 years? Multi-national corporations control congress and will continue to do so until we all call them, speak up and BE HEARD! I for one am sick of the rip offs and I do call congress...the rest of you ought to call as well. "

To:question wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:58 PM:

" From all the drunks when they raise the beer taxes "

Today's politics wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:19 PM:

" This issue is far to complex for our national government to offer a solution. "

smoker wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:17 PM:

" I'm all for this idea of taxing the smokers, but first we get to have everyone make application for their insurance, and then we will hire an actuary to see who we'll provide insurance to. Some that will be rejected will be those who worship the fast food chains, those who gamble to insanity, those who drink alcohol, those who take prescription medicines for their so-called emotional problems, those who work in dangerous professions, those who have dangerous hobbies, those who...let me see who have we forgotten, oh yeah, those who have a life. Can you see where this is leading...to the world's next socialist nation. Wake up people. If you think this is going to stop with smokers, you're not thinking clearly. "

to "Tax them more" wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:14 PM:

" I agree with your comments 100% "

democrate... wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:00 PM:

" umm seeing that democrates wanted to provide for everyone how? by taxing everyone...so really we arent gaining anything.. "

to FYI wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:52 PM:

" " I buy 20 cartons at a time when I visit my sister, who lives near the IA border. They cost a little over $2/pack, so the trip pays for itself. " How does that work? How can a trip pay for itself? If you would quit smoking, you wouldn't have to pay for the smokes or the gas, and you'd have lots of extra money and you wouldn't be wasting time smoking or traveling to the IA state line. "

MRS. wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:40 PM:

" Do these people even think before they talk. They say this program will be paid for by poor smokers. In the next breath they say they hope people will quit smoking. If people quit smoking (which would be great) what are they going to use to pay for this program? They are going to do one of to things or a combination. Taxes will be raised and/or they will take it from the elderly and disabled. It sure is getting scary and the Democrats haven't even taken the whitehouse yet. How in the world did we go from being a responsable loved wealthy country to one going don the poop shoot in just a couple hundred plus years? "

A Friend wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Tax 'em to death. Wring every nickel out of smokers. I hate them and anyone who defends them. "

tax them more wrote on Sep 30, 2007 7:45 PM:

" I'd push the tax to $2 a pack if I were running things. Things like this can be filed under the "stupid tax" category, in that you have to be stupid to voluntarily give your money over for tobacco. That, and I'd slash health care costs nationwide by implementing nicotine testing at the hospital or doctors office. Test positive for nicotine, and any tobacco-linked illnesses are NEVER covered by insurance or public Medicaid costs. We'd have smokers names flagged in a health care database so that lung cancer and emphysema never use a dime of public funds. I'd never go so far as to ban tobacco, because I'm firmly on the side of personal choice and personal responsibility. Still if you're dumb enough to smoke you should never have another person be forced to pay for health care due to your poor choices. "

question wrote on Sep 30, 2007 6:04 PM:

" As people quit smoking where will the money come from to make up for the short fall "

Steven Scott wrote on Sep 30, 2007 6:02 PM:

" It seems our lawmakers don't remember their history, Revolutions were started this way! "

Carlton wrote on Sep 30, 2007 5:50 PM:

" Well, that will hit home with alot of my neighbors. It's funny, I noticed several of my neighbors have 55gal burn barrells in their back yards. "

Chuckie wrote on Sep 30, 2007 5:43 PM:

" I am in favor of any increase in tobacco taxes in any form. It is funny, but I can usually look at a person and tell whether or not they are a smoker. "

Sigh! wrote on Sep 30, 2007 5:32 PM:

" Our politicians have no clue at all! "

READER wrote on Sep 30, 2007 5:26 PM:

" Do you smoke? No, I don't smoke, The cigarette smokes, I'm just the sucker!!!!! "

hmmm wrote on Sep 30, 2007 5:12 PM:

" So, if I were a poor smoker, and I quit smoking who pays for the health care for my kids then? We have heard all this before, "If people quit smoking, we will have healthier people" but, that doesn't solve the problem of kids needing health insurance. Are these politicians trying to say that, the only kids that get sick or injured have poor smokers for parents? Furthermore, to start spending oney you don't have because, you THINK you are going to have it is, ridiculous. That type of philosophy creates even larger money problems. There is no way in hell, the average American worker could balance their checkbook, the way these politicians do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, you only spend what your bank account will allow. It's bad enough to think your going to have more money, it's even worse when you start spending money you don't have. Then you need to start borrowing to try and catch up. Thats how bankruptcies are created. "

lol wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:59 PM:

" Just to put it out there, I am not a smoker, I have never been a smoker, and I think it is a discusting habit. However, for the government to target one group of people for a tax hike is wrong. Whats next? What happens when people stop smoking? Will we have healthier people? Of course we will but, what happens when the politicians need more money for other programs? Who are they going to tax next? "

good start wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:56 PM:

" I'm all for this tax however it shouldn't stop here. In all seriousness, all processed foods, junk food, and other foods that are unhealthy and known to cause obesity and other physical diseases should have a large tax on them as well including any type of dairy or meat that was produced through the use of steroids or growth hormones. "

The Democratic Party Is All For Poor wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:56 PM:

" yea right. This is just yet another of countless examples of how the democratic party are merely socialists that want to tax Americans for what they think our lives need. I hope every poor, minority, low income smoker in the country reads this news and finally wakes up and realizes just what they have been voting for, all these years. I knew the democrats could not keep from raising taxes, hell that is there answer to everything. And if people think there are pork barrel projects going on now, just wait until these socialists get there hands on this kind of cash. This will be every liberals personal piggy back until the next millineum. You poor people better wake up and see these heros of yours for what they really are, communists that live in America. "

Tom Terrific wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:44 PM:

" Ever notice how responsibility is always moving away from the individual and moving towards the government? I wonder what's next. "

Hmmm wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:41 PM:

" Awwww, poor smokers! Too bad! "

Meh wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:25 PM:

" I feel really bad for the smokers, I really really do. "

BOW!!!!! wrote on Sep 30, 2007 3:44 PM:

" Let us all bow down before our new masters. I for one am thrilled to have them there to provide for me and make all my life decisions for me. There is nothing like encouraging dependence to show you care. "

sigh... wrote on Sep 30, 2007 3:14 PM:

" Lets increase the scope of government massively and say it won't cost anything because the smokers are paying for it... all while trying to ban/discourage smoking as much as possible. Guess what, if or when (more likely because the govt loves to take rights away) smoking is banned entirely this program will still exist and then what will fund it? The answer is the higher taxes we will all be paying so that the government can bumble their way through healthcare like they do everything else. "

JD wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:44 PM:

" Representatives admit that there would still need to be 22 million new smokers for the tax to pay for this program. So if these smokers do not magically appear, then the tax will be passed off to Americans in general. Add in that a tax on cigarettes will have some negative impact on the numbers of current smokers and you end up with Congress either having to increase the tax more, and starting the cycle again, or passing the costs off to all taxpayers. Got to love it when geniuses strangle the golden goose in the name of socialism. "

FYI wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:31 PM:

" I buy 20 cartons at a time when I visit my sister, who lives near the IA border. They cost a little over $2/pack, so the trip pays for itself. Where are the benefits promised from the other tax increases? Fewer people are smoking today vs 10 years ago, so the revenue is decreasing even with a new increase. It will only harm the poor and still not give them any benefits. How about $0.50-$1.00/ beer bottle tax? There are always lots of people drinking in bars, so let's cash in there. I won't mind a bit, as the only times I've been desperately thirsty enough to drink a sip or two of beer was on a camping trip(the lake water was too dirty, but probably tasted better). We might even see a benefit of fewer dui's and associated deaths. "

well... wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:31 PM:

" at least the increase is going for a good cause...to help children. "

citizen wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:30 PM:

" Hoping one thing will discourage (Looks good to the public) and the other will have to find another way to fund. Seems like just another way to look like something is getting done and it is really not going anywhere. Government bull. "

I am no longer a democrate wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:27 PM:

" so basically, poor people are paying for there health insurance...wow, democrates are stupied...they are always trying to trick the poor group of people, by doing things like this... "

Instead of taxing smokes again wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:27 PM:

" Why not put a dollar tax on alcohal. There are more drinkers in America than smokers, so if they really need another "sin tax" why not go for alchohal? Oh yea, because most of them drink. "

Dawn wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:24 PM:

" The people who smoke might be less educated, but they are aware of the risks they take when they light up their cigarettes. They know that they will be more likely than nonsmokers to suffer from heart disease, clogged arteries, lung disease, breathing problems, tooth decay, gingivitis, periodontal disease, cancer, back pain, dry eyes, and ear aches. Perhaps, our Congressmen felt that the kids of the smokers would be the ones to utilize the program most frequently. In that case it would only be right that the smokers help pay more for the program. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy