Thursday, May 2, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1902

    Court Tells Clintons to Pay Legal Bills

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that former President Bill Clinton and his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) will have to pay their own legal fees that accumulated during the independent counsel investigation of the Whitewater land deal that occurred in Arkansas during the 1980s.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ordered the Clintons to pay the vast majority of the $3.5 million debt they owe. They had asked for the entire amount to be paid in full by American taxpayers, but the court disagreed. The investigation into the Clintons’ involvement in the questionable land deal lasted over seven years and cost taxpayers $70 million.

    The three judges did not believe the argument made by the Clintons’ lawyer that the couple would not have accumulated so many legal fees over such a long period of time if it were not for their position of power in government.

    “We harbor no doubt that in the absence of the independent counsel statute, the allegations surrounding the Clintons, Madison Guaranty, and Whitewater would have been similarly investigated and prosecuted by the Department of Justice,” opined the judges.

    Although the charges against the Clintons did not lead to an indictment of them personally, the 14-page ruling by the appeals court showed the independent counsel investigation into Whitewater and other issues was instrumental in leading to 24 other indictments, at least 16 convictions, and the impeachment of former President Clinton. The U.S. Senate did not convict Clinton on the charges of impeachment brought to them by the House of Representatives.

    Clinton is not permitted to recoup any expenses related to the Monica Lewinsky investigation because of a previous settlement with the independent counselor.

    David Kendall, the Clintons’ attorney, argued in a statement that his clients should be able to get a large portion of their legal debt retired because former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were allowed to do so in expenses related to the Iran-Contra investigation.

    “The facts and the numbers speak for themselves,” remarked Kendall. “The good news is that the partisan Whitewater smoke-and-mirrors investigation is finally over.”

    Mrs. Clinton, the former first lady and current Senator from New York, recently revealed that she and her husband owe up to $6.5 million in legal fees as of the end 2002.

    The appeals court did allow the Clintons to be paid $85,312.01 to pay for the review and response to the court’s final report, a unique expense to this particular case. The report said that repayment for independent counsel fees “should be difficult; that such fees will not be a common thing.”

    Copyright

    Court Tells Clintons to Pay Legal Bills

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that former President Bill Clinton and his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) will have to pay their own legal fees that accumulated during the independent counsel investigation of the Whitewater land deal that occurred in Arkansas during the 1980s.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ordered the Clintons to pay the vast majority of the $3.5 million debt they owe. They had asked for the entire amount to be paid in full by American taxpayers, but the court disagreed. The investigation into the Clintons’ involvement in the questionable land deal lasted over seven years and cost taxpayers $70 million.

    The three judges did not believe the argument made by the Clintons’ lawyer that the couple would not have accumulated so many legal fees over such a long period of time if it were not for their position of power in government.

    “We harbor no doubt that in the absence of the independent counsel statute, the allegations surrounding the Clintons, Madison Guaranty, and Whitewater would have been similarly investigated and prosecuted by the Department of Justice,” opined the judges.

    Although the charges against the Clintons did not lead to an indictment of them personally, the 14-page ruling by the appeals court showed the independent counsel investigation into Whitewater and other issues was instrumental in leading to 24 other indictments, at least 16 convictions, and the impeachment of former President Clinton. The U.S. Senate did not convict Clinton on the charges of impeachment brought to them by the House of Representatives.

    Clinton is not permitted to recoup any expenses related to the Monica Lewinsky investigation because of a previous settlement with the independent counselor.

    David Kendall, the Clintons’ attorney, argued in a statement that his clients should be able to get a large portion of their legal debt retired because former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were allowed to do so in expenses related to the Iran-Contra investigation.

    “The facts and the numbers speak for themselves,” remarked Kendall. “The good news is that the partisan Whitewater smoke-and-mirrors investigation is finally over.”

    Mrs. Clinton, the former first lady and current Senator from New York, recently revealed that she and her husband owe up to $6.5 million in legal fees as of the end 2002.

    The appeals court did allow the Clintons to be paid $85,312.01 to pay for the review and response to the court’s final report, a unique expense to this particular case. The report said that repayment for independent counsel fees “should be difficult; that such fees will not be a common thing.”

    Copyright

    Court Tells Clintons to Pay Legal Bills

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that former President Bill Clinton and his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) will have to pay their own legal fees that accumulated during the independent counsel investigation of the Whitewater land deal that occurred in Arkansas during the 1980s.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ordered the Clintons to pay the vast majority of the $3.5 million debt they owe. They had asked for the entire amount to be paid in full by American taxpayers, but the court disagreed. The investigation into the Clintons’ involvement in the questionable land deal lasted over seven years and cost taxpayers $70 million.

    The three judges did not believe the argument made by the Clintons’ lawyer that the couple would not have accumulated so many legal fees over such a long period of time if it were not for their position of power in government.

    “We harbor no doubt that in the absence of the independent counsel statute, the allegations surrounding the Clintons, Madison Guaranty, and Whitewater would have been similarly investigated and prosecuted by the Department of Justice,” opined the judges.

    Although the charges against the Clintons did not lead to an indictment of them personally, the 14-page ruling by the appeals court showed the independent counsel investigation into Whitewater and other issues was instrumental in leading to 24 other indictments, at least 16 convictions, and the impeachment of former President Clinton. The U.S. Senate did not convict Clinton on the charges of impeachment brought to them by the House of Representatives.

    Clinton is not permitted to recoup any expenses related to the Monica Lewinsky investigation because of a previous settlement with the independent counselor.

    David Kendall, the Clintons’ attorney, argued in a statement that his clients should be able to get a large portion of their legal debt retired because former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were allowed to do so in expenses related to the Iran-Contra investigation.

    “The facts and the numbers speak for themselves,” remarked Kendall. “The good news is that the partisan Whitewater smoke-and-mirrors investigation is finally over.”

    Mrs. Clinton, the former first lady and current Senator from New York, recently revealed that she and her husband owe up to $6.5 million in legal fees as of the end 2002.

    The appeals court did allow the Clintons to be paid $85,312.01 to pay for the review and response to the court’s final report, a unique expense to this particular case. The report said that repayment for independent counsel fees “should be difficult; that such fees will not be a common thing.”

    Copyright

    The Spending Driven Deficit

    0

    Tomorrow, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolton
    will address the House Budget Committee to release the mid-session
    budget review. The report will show a substantial budget deficit that
    big spending liberals will use to demonize tax cuts. Nothing could be
    further from the truth. Consider these facts:

    FY 03

    *68 percent of the widening of the deficit in fiscal year 2003 to date is the result of spending.

    *The decline in revenues stems from a slower economy, most notably a slower stock market, and hence less capital gains revenue.

    *With the markets restoring nearly $2 trillion of wealth since October, capital gains revenue will be restored while spending remains uncontrolled.

    FY 00 – FY 02

    *75 percent of the deficit is the result of spending and capital gains revenue decline.

    *Other factors not included in this number were income and corporate tax revenue declines due to the recession.

    *Tax cuts had virtually no effect on the deficit in this period.

    Federal Spending Facts

    *If spending were held to rate of income growth from 1994 to 2000, the country would have ”’never”’ entered a surplus. It was only by reducing spending, relative to national income, that the country was able to have a surplus.

    *Spending is now increasing ”’faster”’ than income growth. If spending had been held to the rate of income growth since 2000, the deficit would be just $70 billion – not $400 billion.

    *Annual spending increases from 2000 to 2003 more than ”’triples”’ the amount of annual spending increases from 1992 to 2000.

    *The average American must now work 87 days in 2003 to pay for federal spending, an increase of 10 days compared to 2000.

    *The number of individual pork projects has increased 48 percent over the past two years.

    Reforms are Needed

    *Term Limit Appropriators

    *Keep Spending At The Rate of Inflation

    *Cut Out All Pork

    *Eliminate Corporate Welfare

    *Reform Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance

    Without these reforms, budget deficits will continue indefinitely regardless of how quickly the economy rebounds.

    ”’Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases. See its Web site at:”’ https://www.atr.org/ ”’For more information, please contact Jonathan Collegio at (202) 785-0266 or by email at”’ mailto:jcollegio@atr.org

    The Spending Driven Deficit

    0

    Tomorrow, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolton
    will address the House Budget Committee to release the mid-session
    budget review. The report will show a substantial budget deficit that
    big spending liberals will use to demonize tax cuts. Nothing could be
    further from the truth. Consider these facts:

    FY 03

    *68 percent of the widening of the deficit in fiscal year 2003 to date is the result of spending.

    *The decline in revenues stems from a slower economy, most notably a slower stock market, and hence less capital gains revenue.

    *With the markets restoring nearly $2 trillion of wealth since October, capital gains revenue will be restored while spending remains uncontrolled.

    FY 00 – FY 02

    *75 percent of the deficit is the result of spending and capital gains revenue decline.

    *Other factors not included in this number were income and corporate tax revenue declines due to the recession.

    *Tax cuts had virtually no effect on the deficit in this period.

    Federal Spending Facts

    *If spending were held to rate of income growth from 1994 to 2000, the country would have ”’never”’ entered a surplus. It was only by reducing spending, relative to national income, that the country was able to have a surplus.

    *Spending is now increasing ”’faster”’ than income growth. If spending had been held to the rate of income growth since 2000, the deficit would be just $70 billion – not $400 billion.

    *Annual spending increases from 2000 to 2003 more than ”’triples”’ the amount of annual spending increases from 1992 to 2000.

    *The average American must now work 87 days in 2003 to pay for federal spending, an increase of 10 days compared to 2000.

    *The number of individual pork projects has increased 48 percent over the past two years.

    Reforms are Needed

    *Term Limit Appropriators

    *Keep Spending At The Rate of Inflation

    *Cut Out All Pork

    *Eliminate Corporate Welfare

    *Reform Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance

    Without these reforms, budget deficits will continue indefinitely regardless of how quickly the economy rebounds.

    ”’Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases. See its Web site at:”’ https://www.atr.org/ ”’For more information, please contact Jonathan Collegio at (202) 785-0266 or by email at”’ mailto:jcollegio@atr.org

    The Spending Driven Deficit

    0

    Tomorrow, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolton
    will address the House Budget Committee to release the mid-session
    budget review. The report will show a substantial budget deficit that
    big spending liberals will use to demonize tax cuts. Nothing could be
    further from the truth. Consider these facts:

    FY 03

    *68 percent of the widening of the deficit in fiscal year 2003 to date is the result of spending.

    *The decline in revenues stems from a slower economy, most notably a slower stock market, and hence less capital gains revenue.

    *With the markets restoring nearly $2 trillion of wealth since October, capital gains revenue will be restored while spending remains uncontrolled.

    FY 00 – FY 02

    *75 percent of the deficit is the result of spending and capital gains revenue decline.

    *Other factors not included in this number were income and corporate tax revenue declines due to the recession.

    *Tax cuts had virtually no effect on the deficit in this period.

    Federal Spending Facts

    *If spending were held to rate of income growth from 1994 to 2000, the country would have ”’never”’ entered a surplus. It was only by reducing spending, relative to national income, that the country was able to have a surplus.

    *Spending is now increasing ”’faster”’ than income growth. If spending had been held to the rate of income growth since 2000, the deficit would be just $70 billion – not $400 billion.

    *Annual spending increases from 2000 to 2003 more than ”’triples”’ the amount of annual spending increases from 1992 to 2000.

    *The average American must now work 87 days in 2003 to pay for federal spending, an increase of 10 days compared to 2000.

    *The number of individual pork projects has increased 48 percent over the past two years.

    Reforms are Needed

    *Term Limit Appropriators

    *Keep Spending At The Rate of Inflation

    *Cut Out All Pork

    *Eliminate Corporate Welfare

    *Reform Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance

    Without these reforms, budget deficits will continue indefinitely regardless of how quickly the economy rebounds.

    ”’Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases. See its Web site at:”’ https://www.atr.org/ ”’For more information, please contact Jonathan Collegio at (202) 785-0266 or by email at”’ mailto:jcollegio@atr.org

    Developing World Lights up Big Tobacco

    0

    WASHINGTON (UPI) — They aren’t even allowed to smoke in their own corporate headquarters, not since New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned cigarettes from public areas, including the workplace.

    But that hasn’t stopped cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris from keeping up the fight to sell and promote cigarettes both in the United States and abroad, despite the ever-growing pressure from both U.S. policymakers and private watchdogs alike to make life as uncomfortable as possible for smokers and tobacco purveyors.

    The facts are clear; tobacco kills, and even cigarette manufacturers no longer argue with the science that nicotine is indeed a deadly drug that causes cancer and heart disease. Moreover, after years of struggling to deny the ill-effects of tobacco and disclaim any responsibility for smokers who have died from lung cancer, some companies are actually trying to go out of their way to comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to regulate tobacco products.

    Bearing in mind that cigarette manufacturers already face considerable pressure to cut down on advertising, including corporate sponsorships, further regulation will only make it that much more difficult for companies to sell their products beyond their already-addicted client base. Still, the prospect of facing a rapidly shrinking U.S. market can hardly be heartening for any company, let alone a multinational such as RJ Reynolds and British American Tobacco with shareholders to please.

    The fact that Lexington, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Maryland joined New York City earlier this month in banning smoking from all public spaces, including bars and restaurants, exemplifies just how difficult it is becoming even for adults who are fully aware of the consequences of cigarette smoke to have a puff in some U.S. metropolitan areas.

    So it comes as little surprise that Big Tobacco is prepared effectively to write off the U.S. market, and be content simply with providing a steady flow of nicotine to its core fans, rather than to endeavor cultivating new customers.

    But the quickly growing U.S. regulatory burden doesn’t apply when it comes to the overseas market, especially in the more impoverished countries which are desperate for private capital, or in countries where government regulation of health concerns are relatively lax. In fact, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and British American Tobacco own or lease plants in at least 50 countries.

    Africa, for instance, is a prime target for tobacco purveyors, as they have secured a symbiotic relationship with many governments on the continent. For cash-strapped Malawi, for instance, provides steady income, as it manufacturers 140,000 tons of the 5.7 million tons produced worldwide. The result is that Malawi rakes in $165 million a year from its tobacco crop, or just over two-thirds of its annual foreign revenue. Zimbabwe is similarly dependent on tobacco income.

    Meanwhile, one in four Kenyans, or nearly five million people, are smokers. Government regulation of advertising cigarettes and sponsoring sporting events is loose, while smoking in public places is rarely banned. The country gains about $100 million in revenue from tobacco companies as a result, whilst cigarette makers also provide jobs for tens of thousands of its citizens.

    In short, governments get addicted to the income generated from cigarette marketing and sales, but it may be worth bearing in mind that money generated is often offset by longer-term costs.

    “Most developing countries spend far more foreign exchange on tobacco imports than they gain from tobacco exports,” reported the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington-based anti-tobacco group. It also pointed out that cigarette smokers increase a country’s overall healthcare costs, whilst there is a loss in productivity amongst smoking workers, not to mention that disposable income is wasted to satisfy the smoking habit.

    The biggest foreign market by far is China. It is not only the biggest consumer, but actually also the biggest producer of tobacco as well, manufacturing over 30 percent of the total number of cigarettes produced worldwide. As a result, tobacco taxes in China make up around 8 percent to 10 percent of the national budget.

    But the anti-tobacco activist group argued that even in China, health care costs “already exceed tobacco tax revenue and are projected to increase sharply in the future.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Center for Disease Control reported “tobacco may eventually kill about 50 million of all children and youth alive today in China…during the mid-1990s there are between 500,000 to 700,000 annual tobacco-related deaths. This is predicted to rise to 2 million by 2025.”

    Granted, China passed a law in 1992 not only forcing cigarette packages to carry health warnings, but also control smoking in public spaces, and ban advertising in the media. The law was tightened in 1995, further preventing advertising of tobacco products in public places. Nevertheless, the number of smokers continues to rise, while the state-owned China National Tobacco Corporation employs over half a million workers, 10 million tobacco-growing farmers, and 3 million retailers, and remains by far the single biggest revenue earner for the government.

    And while the World Health Organization’s framework convention on tobacco control treaty signed this June was a major step towards cracking down on cigarette sales worldwide, it clearly will not be as effective a disincentive to smoke as anti-cigarette groups would like it to be. For one, even though 28 countries and the European Union signed the agreement, neither the United States nor China were signatories to this agreement which aims to cut down cigarette advertising, increase taxes and prices, crack down on illicit trade, and enhance labeling on packages to indicate the toxic nature of cigarettes.

    What many anti-smoking activists fail to understand is that in some developing countries, not only is the cigarette industry a major cash-earner, there are few lucrative alternatives to replace it. Until other business prospects are in place, it may prove an uphill struggle to convince many governments to tighten control over the tobacco industry.

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Developing World Lights up Big Tobacco

    0

    WASHINGTON (UPI) — They aren’t even allowed to smoke in their own corporate headquarters, not since New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned cigarettes from public areas, including the workplace.

    But that hasn’t stopped cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris from keeping up the fight to sell and promote cigarettes both in the United States and abroad, despite the ever-growing pressure from both U.S. policymakers and private watchdogs alike to make life as uncomfortable as possible for smokers and tobacco purveyors.

    The facts are clear; tobacco kills, and even cigarette manufacturers no longer argue with the science that nicotine is indeed a deadly drug that causes cancer and heart disease. Moreover, after years of struggling to deny the ill-effects of tobacco and disclaim any responsibility for smokers who have died from lung cancer, some companies are actually trying to go out of their way to comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to regulate tobacco products.

    Bearing in mind that cigarette manufacturers already face considerable pressure to cut down on advertising, including corporate sponsorships, further regulation will only make it that much more difficult for companies to sell their products beyond their already-addicted client base. Still, the prospect of facing a rapidly shrinking U.S. market can hardly be heartening for any company, let alone a multinational such as RJ Reynolds and British American Tobacco with shareholders to please.

    The fact that Lexington, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Maryland joined New York City earlier this month in banning smoking from all public spaces, including bars and restaurants, exemplifies just how difficult it is becoming even for adults who are fully aware of the consequences of cigarette smoke to have a puff in some U.S. metropolitan areas.

    So it comes as little surprise that Big Tobacco is prepared effectively to write off the U.S. market, and be content simply with providing a steady flow of nicotine to its core fans, rather than to endeavor cultivating new customers.

    But the quickly growing U.S. regulatory burden doesn’t apply when it comes to the overseas market, especially in the more impoverished countries which are desperate for private capital, or in countries where government regulation of health concerns are relatively lax. In fact, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and British American Tobacco own or lease plants in at least 50 countries.

    Africa, for instance, is a prime target for tobacco purveyors, as they have secured a symbiotic relationship with many governments on the continent. For cash-strapped Malawi, for instance, provides steady income, as it manufacturers 140,000 tons of the 5.7 million tons produced worldwide. The result is that Malawi rakes in $165 million a year from its tobacco crop, or just over two-thirds of its annual foreign revenue. Zimbabwe is similarly dependent on tobacco income.

    Meanwhile, one in four Kenyans, or nearly five million people, are smokers. Government regulation of advertising cigarettes and sponsoring sporting events is loose, while smoking in public places is rarely banned. The country gains about $100 million in revenue from tobacco companies as a result, whilst cigarette makers also provide jobs for tens of thousands of its citizens.

    In short, governments get addicted to the income generated from cigarette marketing and sales, but it may be worth bearing in mind that money generated is often offset by longer-term costs.

    “Most developing countries spend far more foreign exchange on tobacco imports than they gain from tobacco exports,” reported the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington-based anti-tobacco group. It also pointed out that cigarette smokers increase a country’s overall healthcare costs, whilst there is a loss in productivity amongst smoking workers, not to mention that disposable income is wasted to satisfy the smoking habit.

    The biggest foreign market by far is China. It is not only the biggest consumer, but actually also the biggest producer of tobacco as well, manufacturing over 30 percent of the total number of cigarettes produced worldwide. As a result, tobacco taxes in China make up around 8 percent to 10 percent of the national budget.

    But the anti-tobacco activist group argued that even in China, health care costs “already exceed tobacco tax revenue and are projected to increase sharply in the future.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Center for Disease Control reported “tobacco may eventually kill about 50 million of all children and youth alive today in China…during the mid-1990s there are between 500,000 to 700,000 annual tobacco-related deaths. This is predicted to rise to 2 million by 2025.”

    Granted, China passed a law in 1992 not only forcing cigarette packages to carry health warnings, but also control smoking in public spaces, and ban advertising in the media. The law was tightened in 1995, further preventing advertising of tobacco products in public places. Nevertheless, the number of smokers continues to rise, while the state-owned China National Tobacco Corporation employs over half a million workers, 10 million tobacco-growing farmers, and 3 million retailers, and remains by far the single biggest revenue earner for the government.

    And while the World Health Organization’s framework convention on tobacco control treaty signed this June was a major step towards cracking down on cigarette sales worldwide, it clearly will not be as effective a disincentive to smoke as anti-cigarette groups would like it to be. For one, even though 28 countries and the European Union signed the agreement, neither the United States nor China were signatories to this agreement which aims to cut down cigarette advertising, increase taxes and prices, crack down on illicit trade, and enhance labeling on packages to indicate the toxic nature of cigarettes.

    What many anti-smoking activists fail to understand is that in some developing countries, not only is the cigarette industry a major cash-earner, there are few lucrative alternatives to replace it. Until other business prospects are in place, it may prove an uphill struggle to convince many governments to tighten control over the tobacco industry.

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Developing World Lights up Big Tobacco

    0

    WASHINGTON (UPI) — They aren’t even allowed to smoke in their own corporate headquarters, not since New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned cigarettes from public areas, including the workplace.

    But that hasn’t stopped cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris from keeping up the fight to sell and promote cigarettes both in the United States and abroad, despite the ever-growing pressure from both U.S. policymakers and private watchdogs alike to make life as uncomfortable as possible for smokers and tobacco purveyors.

    The facts are clear; tobacco kills, and even cigarette manufacturers no longer argue with the science that nicotine is indeed a deadly drug that causes cancer and heart disease. Moreover, after years of struggling to deny the ill-effects of tobacco and disclaim any responsibility for smokers who have died from lung cancer, some companies are actually trying to go out of their way to comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to regulate tobacco products.

    Bearing in mind that cigarette manufacturers already face considerable pressure to cut down on advertising, including corporate sponsorships, further regulation will only make it that much more difficult for companies to sell their products beyond their already-addicted client base. Still, the prospect of facing a rapidly shrinking U.S. market can hardly be heartening for any company, let alone a multinational such as RJ Reynolds and British American Tobacco with shareholders to please.

    The fact that Lexington, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Maryland joined New York City earlier this month in banning smoking from all public spaces, including bars and restaurants, exemplifies just how difficult it is becoming even for adults who are fully aware of the consequences of cigarette smoke to have a puff in some U.S. metropolitan areas.

    So it comes as little surprise that Big Tobacco is prepared effectively to write off the U.S. market, and be content simply with providing a steady flow of nicotine to its core fans, rather than to endeavor cultivating new customers.

    But the quickly growing U.S. regulatory burden doesn’t apply when it comes to the overseas market, especially in the more impoverished countries which are desperate for private capital, or in countries where government regulation of health concerns are relatively lax. In fact, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and British American Tobacco own or lease plants in at least 50 countries.

    Africa, for instance, is a prime target for tobacco purveyors, as they have secured a symbiotic relationship with many governments on the continent. For cash-strapped Malawi, for instance, provides steady income, as it manufacturers 140,000 tons of the 5.7 million tons produced worldwide. The result is that Malawi rakes in $165 million a year from its tobacco crop, or just over two-thirds of its annual foreign revenue. Zimbabwe is similarly dependent on tobacco income.

    Meanwhile, one in four Kenyans, or nearly five million people, are smokers. Government regulation of advertising cigarettes and sponsoring sporting events is loose, while smoking in public places is rarely banned. The country gains about $100 million in revenue from tobacco companies as a result, whilst cigarette makers also provide jobs for tens of thousands of its citizens.

    In short, governments get addicted to the income generated from cigarette marketing and sales, but it may be worth bearing in mind that money generated is often offset by longer-term costs.

    “Most developing countries spend far more foreign exchange on tobacco imports than they gain from tobacco exports,” reported the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington-based anti-tobacco group. It also pointed out that cigarette smokers increase a country’s overall healthcare costs, whilst there is a loss in productivity amongst smoking workers, not to mention that disposable income is wasted to satisfy the smoking habit.

    The biggest foreign market by far is China. It is not only the biggest consumer, but actually also the biggest producer of tobacco as well, manufacturing over 30 percent of the total number of cigarettes produced worldwide. As a result, tobacco taxes in China make up around 8 percent to 10 percent of the national budget.

    But the anti-tobacco activist group argued that even in China, health care costs “already exceed tobacco tax revenue and are projected to increase sharply in the future.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Center for Disease Control reported “tobacco may eventually kill about 50 million of all children and youth alive today in China…during the mid-1990s there are between 500,000 to 700,000 annual tobacco-related deaths. This is predicted to rise to 2 million by 2025.”

    Granted, China passed a law in 1992 not only forcing cigarette packages to carry health warnings, but also control smoking in public spaces, and ban advertising in the media. The law was tightened in 1995, further preventing advertising of tobacco products in public places. Nevertheless, the number of smokers continues to rise, while the state-owned China National Tobacco Corporation employs over half a million workers, 10 million tobacco-growing farmers, and 3 million retailers, and remains by far the single biggest revenue earner for the government.

    And while the World Health Organization’s framework convention on tobacco control treaty signed this June was a major step towards cracking down on cigarette sales worldwide, it clearly will not be as effective a disincentive to smoke as anti-cigarette groups would like it to be. For one, even though 28 countries and the European Union signed the agreement, neither the United States nor China were signatories to this agreement which aims to cut down cigarette advertising, increase taxes and prices, crack down on illicit trade, and enhance labeling on packages to indicate the toxic nature of cigarettes.

    What many anti-smoking activists fail to understand is that in some developing countries, not only is the cigarette industry a major cash-earner, there are few lucrative alternatives to replace it. Until other business prospects are in place, it may prove an uphill struggle to convince many governments to tighten control over the tobacco industry.

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Grassroot Perspective – July 17, 2003-MSAs the Answer to 'Accident of History'; Consumer Driven Plans Last Chance to Prevent National Health Insurance; Ten Common Myths About Taxes, Spending and Budget Deficits

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – MSAs the Answer to ‘Accident of History’

    Whatever they do on the Hill, the market continues to move in the direction of empowering consumers. The “Florida Times-Union” ran an editorial noting that
    employer involvement in health insurance is “an accident
    of history.” Consumers now pay, it says, only one dollar
    for every five dollars of the costs — “If people paid
    only one-fifth of the cost of steak at the supermarket,
    few would eat hamburger.” But ultimately people are
    paying the other four dollars as well, it is just “spread
    throughout the economy. and reflected in lower wages
    and higher prices everywhere.” The article predicts
    that rising costs will “spark new interest in medical
    savings accounts.”
    SOURCE:
    https://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062003/opi_12835788.shtml

    – Consumer Driven Plans Last Chance to Prevent National Health Insurance

    Bill Brewer reports in the “Knoxville News-Sentinel”
    that insurers are “turning to consumers to rein in
    costs in what some observers say is a last chance at
    keeping health insurance out of the federal government’s
    hands.” The article is a report on a recent health
    care forum held in Knoxville. The chief medical officer
    of the Tennessee Blues, Dr. Steven Coulter, thinks
    physicians, insurers, employers and employees have
    to “work together to control costs.” He cites his son
    as an example of an uninformed consumer who “believes
    a visit to the doctor costs $10. He doesn’t see medical
    care as expensive and he doesn’t make judicious choices.”
    An actuary with Milliman USA, Doug Proebsting, reports
    that “62 percent of U.S. employers surveyed by Milliman
    said they plan to move toward consumerism this year
    or next..” The article also notes that spending on
    health care is up by 675 percent in Tennessee over
    the last twenty years, compared to 450 percent nationally.
    SOURCE: https://www.knoxnews.com/ This is another one
    of those pubs that charges to retrieve archives. The
    original article ran in the business section on June
    15, 2003.

    Above articles are quoted from The Galen Institute’s Consumer Choice
    Matters, #21 https://www.galen.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – Ten Common Myths About Taxes, Spending and Budget Deficits

    By Brian M. Riedl

    Executive Summary #1660

    Myths, misconceptions, and errors increasingly are confusing the public
    debate on taxes, spending, and budget deficits.

    Economic misinformation begins with politicians, who are usually more
    concerned with winning the next election than with seeking “economic
    truth.” And winning generally requires presenting their own views
    favorably and their opponents’ views unfavorably.

    However, precise economic theories and ambiguous data results rarely
    produce the sound bites needed for a 30-second political hit piece.
    Consequently, politicians routinely oversimplify complex principles,
    manipulate data to serve their own ends, and reverse their positions as
    guided by polling data. It is the public’s duty to hold politicians
    accountable for the policies they enact based on failed economics.

    When political leaders communicate to their constituents, the media
    transmit and often analyze those messages. How Americans view the world,
    their government, and the economy is therefore largely influenced by
    what the media tell them.

    Yet media reports often contain economic misinformation. Reporters do
    not purposely mislead their readers and viewers: They have a nearly
    impossible job. Journalists with little or no academic training in
    economics are asked to define, explain, and often settle debates in an
    increasingly complex academic field where debates often come down to
    dueling statistical models.

    Added to the mix are politicians who recklessly twist the field’s
    principles and data to suit their political agendas. Is it, therefore,
    any wonder that economic mythology has become widespread?

    This paper refutes 10 common misconceptions about taxes, spending, and
    budget deficits that are spread by politicians and reporters.

    undefined

    Brian M. Riedl is
    Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A.
    Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

    Above article is quoted from The Heritage Foundation, Research
    https://www.heritage.org

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    “The foundation of national morality must be laid in the private
    families.” — John Adams

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/