Molly Ivins September 14AUSTIN — While Republicans on the Thompson committee search desperately for a quid for the pro quo in last year's sleazy money scramble (Al Gore will never be able to vote in favor National Buddhist Nuns Day again), there is this (ahem) rather large problem of their own staring them in the face: the $50 billion tax giveaway to Big Tobacco that their own leadership snuck into the budget bill. What a chicken-poop move that was. No fingerprints, no sponsor, no analysis, no debate — just a $50 billion special deal stuck into the bill at the last minute. The one-sentence provision would have allowed the tobacco companies to deduct the cost of the 15-cents-a-pack cigarette tax increase from the cost of the pending $368.5 billion national settlement, for a total decrease of 14 percent in the settlement to which the tobacco companies had agreed. This tax increase, you may recall, was supposed to finance health-care insurance for poor children; instead, Congress diverted it from children's health to help the tobacco industry pay the costs of the settlement. According to all the experts on sneak plays, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott were the only ones who could have pulled it off. And why would they have done that? On our list of Top PAC Donors for the past 10 years, who do we find but Philip Morris Co. and RJR Nabisco? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 1995-1996 all the tobacco companies together gave $6.8 million in total contributions in soft money — $1.064 million to Democratic Party committees and $5.768 million to Republican Party committees. According to Common Cause, the top double-givers (meaning givers to both parties) for the first six months of this year were first place, Philip Morris, and second place, RJ Reynolds Tobacco. If you give enough soft money, can you buy a tax break from Congress? Yes, Virginia, you can. Fortunately, the press raised such a stink about this one (we do have our uses) that the Senate voted last week to rescind it, 95-3. Not one senator spoke in favor of letting it stand. In other words, pee-yew. It would be interesting to know what President Clinton, who made an enemy of Big Tobacco years ago, traded Gingrich and Lott in order to let that stinker in the budget. Hope it was worth $50 billion.
Gingrich defended the $50 billion tax break, saying: "I think people were misreading the tax provision. We're not cutting a break for the tobacco folks." Sure, Newt. Must take a lawyer to understand it. Guess that's why the state attorneys general who made the settlement with the tobacco companies threatened to withdraw if the $50 billion credit wasn't blocked. In the meantime, another brilliant use of the taxpayers' money was updated by the General Accounting Office, which reported last month that there are just a few new problems with the B-2 stealth bomber ($22 billion a copy, roughly three times its weight in gold). The latest problem is that the B-2 can't fly in the rain. According to the GAO, the world's most expensive airplane "must be sheltered or exposed only to the most benign environment — low humidity, no precipitation, moderate temperatures." It turns out that rain, heat and humidity damage the plane's skin. Don't let it near Houston. Toward the end of '95, the House voted to keep the insanely expensive B-2 program alive by the whopping margin of 213-210. Now, here's an interesting fact: The 210 members who voted against the B-2 got an average of $113 in campaign contributions from the Northrop Grumman PAC — Northrop being the maker of the B-2. The 213 who voted for it got an average of $2,073 from the Northrop PAC. And again, on June 23, there was an amendment to cut the funding for nine more of these fabulous bombers with the sensitive skin; the vote this time was 216-209. According to Jennifer Schecter of the Center for Responsive Politics, the 209 who voted against the funding got an average of $234 from Northrop, while the 216 in favor got an average of $2,378. Northrop also gave $182,000 in soft money during '95-'96. Are we ready to fix the campaign finance system yet? Devoted followers of the Thompson committee already know that the latest irrelevant wrestling match is over hard money vs. soft money. Did Gore know he was raising hard money? Why didn't he know he was raising hard money? How could he have thought it was soft money? These grave questions have fully occupied Our Boys for days now. Fellas, are any of you aware that no one in the real world gives a hoot? Soft money, schmoft money — we want the whole rotten system changed. Today's slogan: Buy back democracy with public campaign finance! *** Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
