• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama's Tax Hikes Already Hurting the Poor

    Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

    - then-candidate Barack Obama, 9/12/2008.

    President Obama has signed a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children. … To cover the increase in spending, the bill would boost the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack.

    - Fox News, 2/4/2009

    Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, rose 0.3 percent last month. It was the biggest jump since July, but about 40 percent of the gain came from a huge rise in tobacco prices, reflecting higher federal taxes.

    - Associated Press, 5/15/2009.

    Slightly more than half of today’s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year — making cigarette taxes highly regressive. Another 35% of smokers earn between $36,000 and $89,999 per year, while only 12% of all smokers make at least $90,000 annually.

    - Gallup, 4/1/2009

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    40 Responses to Obama's Tax Hikes Already Hurting the Poor

    1. jr., Michigan says:

      uh- ahem….duh! typical tax and spend liberal.

    2. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      It is the smokers turn now. Next it will be obese people and fast foods. It will follow the pattern of Nazi Germany- they came for Jews (I am not a Jew), then they came for Catholics (I am not a Catholic), then they came for Protestants (I am not a Protestant) and then they came for any body they didn't like (it is too late, they came after me).

      It is about tyrannical power.

    3. Barb -mn says:

      What a liar, Mr. President. What dignity you don't have.

      Somebody should look into how many cigarettes the president is buying and having sold in that one kind of market that's against the law? Friends, associates and future voters… Here's a bill: any materials harmful to the health or altering physically and or mental health of the president is not to be purchased on the taxpayers dime? Just a thought?

      What a liar.

    4. SLT says:

      You guys are overly dramatic in stating that Obama tax hikes are hurting the poor, smoking is not a necessity and perhaps the increase in price will cause the addicted to smoke less or even quit alltogether. Isn't that the point?

      And if they smoke less or quit won't they have more money and miss less work days due to smoking related illness?

      I expected a real article from you at the Heritage foundation not some 30 second sound bite waste of time.

    5. Diane A./Pittsburgh says:


      I understand the point you are making and, of course, you are right. However, the conservatives' task should be to prove to people that the liberals' methods are based on lies and fallacies. To do that, you must target big ticket items – not nitpit over petty stuff. This is the type of thing that cost the Republican Party their Congressional majority. Do we really want to appear in favor of cigarette smoking? No. This definitely falls under the umbrella of "pick your battles," as opposed to the image that all Republicans do is disagree and never present any forward-thinking ideas.

      Also consider, since cigarette smokers tend to be people on the receiving end of taxes we pay, it's poetic justice for them to be kicking in some revenue for a change.

      Your attention would best be spent examining the flip side of the coin. Taxes won't rise, just fees. Watch how fast the government escalates the cost of fishing licenses, drivers' licenses, entry fees for national parks, and so on. Even the state-related fee increases are connected with the feds, because the federal government typically subsidizes through grants those expenditures that appear to be borne by states.

    6. Diane A./Pittsburgh says:

      oops I misspelled nitpick, sorry I'm tired.

    7. James Raider says:

      A First Hundred Days that will change America….


      Where's the objectivity in the MSM?

    8. OPAS says:

      James Raider writes:

      Where’s the objectivity in the MSM?


      The MSM has 100% "objectivity", it is to achieve their "objective": to get YOU TO KEEP ON VOTING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE YOU send to Wsshington to destroy your country from within.

      You don't like it? YOU can STOP buying the newspapers and STOP WATCHING their TV propaganda. Don't expect to see any of YOUR "protests" in THEIR newspaper or on THEIR TV.

    9. SUSANM, ABINGDON MD. says:



    10. SUSANM, ABINGDON MD. says:



    11. OPAS says:

      Diane A./Pittsburgh writes:


      …. "cigarette smokers tend to be people on the receiving end of taxes we pay, it’s poetic justice for them to be kicking in some revenue for a change".

      Shades of Al Gore, that is pure Sophistry, "THOSE" smokers do not pay the tax. I agree that many do not work and live solely off our tax dollars, however when they buy a pack or carton of cigarettes, a hefty tax is be paid.

      Diane A. says: "people on the receiving end of taxes we pay, it’s poetic justice for them to be kicking in some revenue for a change."

      Hellooooo, "the people on the receiving end of taxes we pay" do not have any "earned" money, that is why they are, as you put it, "on the receiving end of taxes we pay". My question is; how is it "poetic justice" when it is OUR TAX MONEY THAT PAYS the cicarette TAX YOU WANT TO RAISE?".

      They won't be paying the increased tax, Income tax payers will, so, "HOW is INCREASING the tax WE PAY on their cigarettes poetic justice?"

    12. Mike, Atlanta, GA says:


      Very few (if any) sodas nowadays are made with sugar – most have high fructose corn syrup (which, like smoking, isn't good for your body, either) because of … good lobbying! Check your food labels! Watch what you eat! The government is out to get you.

    13. Grace, Florida says:

      A large percentage of people who voted for Obama are smokers – that's all most of them have to do all day. If they would just go out and get some kind of job – they too to cut down and maybe quit smoking – most places are smoke free now. It's amazing what's going on here. Can't people see what's happening. I feel the only way we (the people) can make a difference before 2010 and 2012 is to tighten the purse strings. Don't by anything you don't need. Washington has got to understand they need us to spend money to get this economy going again and it they won't work with us – we'll work against them.

    14. MaryAnn, USA says:

      SLT- The taxes on cigarettes is supposed to pay for the expanded SCHIP program. If all the smokers quit smoking, how will all the kids be insured? The government will simply find something else to tax,some other liberty to curtail. Eventually, there will be no one left to tax. That is the problem with socialism- eventually you run out of other people's money.

    15. Brad S,, Detroit, MI says:

      Cigarette tax increase will be small potatoes compared to two items that are coming in the next couple of years :

      1) Energy tax (Quit calling it Cap and Trade) that will cost every family roughly $120 to $300 per month.

      2) Inflation. Those with the smallest amount of discretionary income (Families that earn $50,000 per year or less) will really start to feel the "CHAINS we can believe in." Forget about the family vacation, dining out occassionally, and any of that frivoulous spending. . .

      Oh, and raising taxes on cigarettes does not yield a commisserate rise in revenue. They have done it here in Michigan five different times and the net proceeds from the taxes increases less than half of the % increase because it forces some people to cut back, buy their cigarettes from another state, or they finally quit. (Example – MI increased tax in 2004 from $1.25 to $2.00 per pack (60% increase) and got only a 25% increase in tax revenue).

    16. Normca says:

      It is not the tax alone that is the hammer that is really the focus. The Obama and the congress want to control behavior, including smoking. Cheerios is a bad food [the label is misleading], fast food restaurants make us obese and smoking is harmful. On one hand, they want people to not smoke and on the other side, who will pay for children's' health care [for 25 year olds] if fewer people smoke? The liberals are still picking winners and losers. It is the losers they will need in Nov 2010. However the cigaret tax payers, who earn a low income do not put the fact that it was democrats who raised their tax in the equation when they vote for them all over again.

    17. Kevin, WI says:

      To SusanM, in Abingdon, Md:

      There IS a proposal to tax breathing (or release of CO2): it's called cap and trade. Right now they are just going after the companies that release or produce it. I am no environmental expert, but umm, don't plants take co2 and turn it into oxygen for us to breathe? Just a thought…

    18. Dennis, Idaho says:

      Spiritof76 is right on. It is not about smoking, or fast food or any other minor issue it is about POWER AND CONTROL. I don't like smoking but I defend a persons right to choose, however I don't want to pay his medical bills through government healthcare. If I don't defend their right to smoke and other nitpicky issues there will be no one there to help defend my right to have farm animals and a garden to raise my own healthy food. Believe me that the government and big multinationals want to control your food supply. It is ALL about POWER AND CONTROL.

    19. Jill T/Denver CO says:

      Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it won't be long before there is a tax on breathing or population control by association. It really isn't that far fetched any more.

    20. LW, Newport News VA says:

      Supposedly the children's health program (SCHIP) was going to be paid for by the cigarette tax increase. What this administration forgets is human nature: ANY time government raises a tax on a commodity or an activity consumers buy less of that product or people engage in that activity to a lesser degree. It's economics 101. There will be less, not more tax revenue from cigarettes. Then how will they fund SCHIP? Easy, they tax other products that in their view pose a health risk. Just another way for govenment to have power over every aspect of our lives.

    21. Bill, Florida says:

      SLT, i'd like to respond to your comment, "…smoking is not a necessity and perhaps the increase in price will cause the addicted to smoke less or even quit alltogether. Isn’t that the point?"

      I believe the point you're making is that the federal goverment is using tax policy as an agent of social engineering–government taxes / doesn't tax individuals into making the choices that government wants them to make–and that, ultimately, you support this practice.

      I, and likely all conservatives, find ourselves on the other side of that fence. We believe it is very dangerous for government to wield that kind of power to "incentivize" our individual actions so that we do what the government decides is beneficial. Because it always begs the question, "What's next?" What happens when the next "bad behavior" in the fed's crosshairs is something that you do?

      Back to the original purpose of this Foundry post, it serves to further demonstrate the demagoguery of our President who says what needs to be said to get elected, and then does something markedly different.

    22. Jerry, Indiana says:

      Bill, I agree with you. It makes one wonder what would happen if all smokers quit tomorrow. The revenue from all of these taxes would be gone and our government leaders would be looking around, asking, "Where do we find the money now?" That's when they will have to find some other "vice" to tax. I'm afraid there can be no end to this type of foolishness under this administration or any administration that would seek to make government the sole resource for fixing all the problems that plague us.

    23. Donna, Texas says:

      Kevin in WI, you're absolutely right. I've wondered for ages why no one else has brought that up.Greenies, want to reduce CO2? Howzabout we create more urban green space?

      I'm not a Nobama supporter by any means, but I have a hard time feeling sympathetic about increased tobacco tax, regardless of one's economic status. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't smoke. You'll enjoy better health, more money in your pocket, and one less tax gnawing away at your resources. Until they figure out how to tax your breathing, that is. Just a thought, there.

    24. Ron, Noblesville, IN says:

      What if a non smoker contracts Lung Cancer from 2nd hand smoke… Should the smokers be required to pay the medical bills of those who do not ?

      In regards to Obama: Did those that voted for him really believe all the Hype ?

      Gradpa used to say "Boy if it sounds to good to be true.it is"…

      Getting back to my first question… "Why Not?"

      We non smokers are helping pay for the smokers

      aren't we?

    25. Ron Valla says:

      Sure they want you to quit smoking but not really,it's all about money,if everyone quit smoking they would lose all the taxes they put on cig's. when that happens they would go after something else.Some people did lost time at work but is it really from smoking?or can it just be some one being sick at work and passing it on to other people.I haven't lose a days work to smoking.Has anyone heard of Radon gas,which is the cause of a lot of cancers in people but smoking gets the blame,just because it's suitable to the anti-smoking group.what about all the other things that we inhale that make us sick,you don't hear about that and they don't add taxes to that.

    26. Brad L, Phoenix says:

      The way I see it, this commentary on the impact of the cigarette tax reinforces the concern for the current administration’s ability to act in any way that they want to. Notwithstanding the liberal argument that the way to achieve social change is by oppressive taxation, it is difficult to carry on a conversation with a person who does not see the economic impact difference between a person of very modest income who smokes and a person of substantial income. As a percentage of disposable income, the modest wage earner will pay a significantly higher cost than the one of substantial means.

      Why not impose a significant tax on jet fuel. If you exclude the common carriers (airlines and freight forwarders), then only the “rich” who fly in corporate jets will have to pay. How about increasing the tax on gasoline. Those of modest means might have to stop driving their “polluting” cars and use public transportation that we have spent billions of dollars on for the good of the common man. How about taxing all meat products. Since they contain cholesterol, think of all the good it would do if everyone became a vegetarian. How about increasing the tax on cell phone use. There’s and easy back door to get billions in tax revenue since the vast majority of people have one. Also, think about the “good” it could do by reducing the usage of the cell phone. Perhaps there would be less usage in the car which could prevent traffic accidents.

      I could go on and on, and unfortunately the current administration seems to be doing just that. Conservatives need to develop a working platform that shows the dramatic difference in fiscal policy. Liberals believe that the way to improve life is to use the “stick” rather than the “carrot”. Higher taxes will discourage certain behavior, and if it doesn’t, so much the better since the tax base will rise. The conservative point of view is to offer “incentives” to modify behavior by reducing one’s tax obligations and rewarding efforts.

      The toughest part of the equation is that our society has developed a base population that has very few tax obligations (besides sales and excise); they are just the recipients of entitlement programs that feed off the current tax base.

      The deepest concern that I have is the ease at which this administration can impose its will on the general population. We have lost the ability to discuss and debate the pros and cons of proposed actions. A government “of the people, by the people and for the people” seems to be vanishing from our society.

    27. Terry B says:

      To Diane in Pittsburgh,I realize this seems like small potatoes,however it shows the overall mindset of what this Obama government is doing. Republicans do ned to make America aware of these small things,but do it in a way to show how it will effect the bigger things coming down the road! Republicans must expose the way that our country got into this economic mess! If they would simply create an ad showing the congressional hearings with Barney Frank,and Maxine Waters denying any problems with the housing debacle. The should show this over & over and over! I showed this email to co-workers before the election and it actually changed them from voting for Obama! The media of course would never expose the truth!Republicans should also expose the liberal tax & spend policies in California and what liberalism does when it is allowed to run rampant! They need to show why this is what will happen to America with Obama's polices.Republicans had better go back to their conservative roots or they will never regain power again,I don't care what the so called moderates say!!

    28. Greg, Vail, AZ says:

      In our founders America, freedom of choice was one of the most important civil liberties we have. Smoking is a CHOICE!! We need more personal responsibility in this country. YOU are responsible for the choices you make, not me, not the government. Targeting tobacco or any other products with a tax exclusive to that product is UNFAIR. The Obama administrations mantra to "fairness and change" means for the betterment of the government, not us.

    29. Steven D. Lange, St. says:

      Think bigger folks. Both parties have, for decades, been slowly draining the swamp they call the "MIDDLE ClASS". They are progressively redistributing our middle class wealth back to the government so that they can do with it what they want. In this way they control us.

      Cigarette taxes is just one straw on our backs. It is all of the other straws that we are already carrying that is the core problem.

      We need to start removing these straws from our middle class economic burden. Massive tax rollbacks must be realized and soon.

      We all need to fight this government before it is too late and they kill the middle class altogether.

    30. Dennis A. Social Cir says:

      The dems just understand taxes, not what more taxes will do to this country. Taxes hurt, it does not matter where they come from. If we think taxes are high now wait till you file your income tax in 2010, then you will see what taxes do to you. I still find it hard to believe that the American people actually put this so called man in the White House. I guess it just shows if you tell people what they want to hear you can do anything you want to them, that is what has happened, he sold this country on "hope and change". Well where is your hope now, and the change is not what you expected. I jsut pray that hope and real change will come in the 2010 elections, maybe enough people will wake up and see what is taking place with our Constitution and the freedoms that we take for granted.

    31. Steve -- Fort Myers, says:

      What a stretch!! Tens of Millions of American workers are unemployed or underpaid and the best we can come up with is regressive cigarette taxes. For reasons like this ill conceived and ridiculous attack, our country continues to fail to get the economic solutions right.

      The sooner we come together and realize that Americans need to get back to work in living wage jobs, the sooner America will begin to rebuild herself! A great starting point would be the rescinding of free trade agreements so Americans can once again begin producing for their own needs. Now that would be a real economic stimulus!

    32. Anthony D Dolpies Ph says:

      SLT suppose you are right and less poeple smoke due to the tax hike, (which is probably true)

      1. what happens when the revenue produced by this tax begins to run out because of decreasing sales?(by the way the revenue this tax brings in is not sufficient to fund this program anyway)

      2. By raising the taxes products like this you are making this type of product a luxury reserved for the wealthy, so you are in fact waging class warfare on the poor. Who is the government to decide.

      3. I used to be a smoker, one day I decided to go for a jog, after the jog I was completly winded, that was the last day I smoked a cigarette. I didn't need an extra government tax or program, to help me quit or realize I was not going to be able to live a healthy lifestyle and still smoke.

      4. Most people who are smokers have a pleasure seeking sort of personality, once they stop smoking they will find something else to spend their money on. for example when I stopped smoking I started buying exercise equipt and health shakes.

      When the government starts trying to reward certain personal behaviors & punish others they are really just trying to ration freedom. So the real question is how much of your freedom are you willing to give up to have this program

    33. Janice, Lincoln, Neb says:

      In response to SLT's May 15 post: You are correct that one intent of the tax hike on cigarettes is to entice smokers to quit. What you are missing is what this tax is supposed to fund – the SCHIP program. If fewer people smoke, there will be less revenue from cigarettes, yet we will still need the revenue to cover the cost of SCHIP. From where will that needed revenue come? A good bet would be it will come from another tax that will greatly impact those who can least afford it. This is not change you can believe in!

    34. JAB says:

      Reply to SusanM,5/16





    35. Paul, FL says:

      Reply to SLT:

      Let me point something out to you. It isn't the government's business how much you smoke or if you smoke. This is just another increase in taxes foisted on the backs of everyday Joes.

      I'm saying the government needs to stay the hell out of people's private lives and then "We the People" would definitely have more money to spend (or not) as we see fit, mainly because of less laws, regulations, fees, etc. BTW, I don't smoke.

    36. Rosie, Princeton, NJ says:

      Ah, we see the Obama administration is thinking of taxing fast-food restaurants (probably the only restaurants most of us can afford any more) and soda since they're bad for us.

      "Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Public Interests.

      Mr. Jacobsen, you are grossly mistaken, ignoring the drink that most Americans pay approximately $200/month for drinks that contains ammonia, arsenic, fecal coliform, E Coli, barium, chloride, mercury, nitrite, phenolics, silver, cyanide and perchlorate (rocket fuel) – our drinking water which your EPA refuses to acknowledge as detrimental to our health. But it's big business that's doing this to our water, and Mr. President doesn't mess with big business – he is, after all, one of them. Rather than putting so much mental energy into healthcare reform, how about clean up the mess that is making us all sick? But if we got better, that would hurt the insurance and pharmaceutical companies (who invest billions in the tobacco industry), and we can't have that now, can we?

      Mr. Obama had the audacity to ask the American public if we've seen the price of arugula at Whole Foods lately.

      1. Whole Foods is a racket with slim choosings of true Organic produce and meats. Nice of you to promote them, but who, Mr. Obama, can afford to shop at Whole Foods besides yourself (now)?

      3. Mr. Obama, we shouldn't HAVE to shop at Whole Foods for produce and meats that won't kill us. Why don't you tackle the likes of Monsanto and Con Agra who have poisoned our food supplies and tainted our meats with hormones and antibiotics (Oestradiol, Progesterone, Testosterone, rgBH, Zeranol, Trenbolone, Melengestrol, Synercid, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tetracycline, flouroquine, Cipro, Baytril, and estrogens) that cause obesity, immune disorders, resistance to antibiotics, premature puberty, pre-pubertal gynecomastia (Google it), autism, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, cognitive disorders, diabetes, hypothyroidism, uterine cancer, sudden infant death syndrome, brain disease, and poisoned our ground and waters they so zealously use in their pesticides that are absorbed into the fruits and vegetables we get at our neighborhood supermarket, instead of soda? How about tacklling the "Big Dogs" instead of staying on the porch playing Mama Obama hiding behind Hillary Clinton's skirts and worrying about McDonalds and Soda?

      Wanna tax something? Tax This:

      1. Tax plastic surgery – you know, the tummy tucks, facelifts, breast implants, liposuction, microdermabrasion….all things the rich can afford and is a cash only market. No insurance involved. Lots of money to be made from that, especially from Hollywood. Let them start paying some taxes for a change since we’ve been paying their way and padding their wallets for centuries. You think Oprah would let you do this? Ask her, would you?

      2. Tax prime cuts of beef. Yup, beef, if you're so concerned about our health. Your filet mignons, your pricey beef that the middle class cannot afford – let it kill you and not us. You want to eat high on the hog? Tax 'em. Why are you playing with soda and McDonalds when you can go for the gold?

      3. How about taxing Manicures and Pedicures? You think this is a joke? The area where I live has approximately 14 nail salons in a 5-mile radius, and their shops are booming. You said you're concerned about our health? Have you done your homework about the number of infections, diseases and nail fungii that these people get from these places? Tax 'em, Mr. Obama. It is a luxury, and it is one booming business in the US. Why worry about soda when your young American women that voted you into office will without a blink pay another dollar or two at these filthy places – tax 'em. Another all cash business and another luxury that you missed.

      4. Instead of taking from the Medicare system and lowering the standards of service for the elderly who changed your diapers, fed you, clothed you, faught in numerous wars (that you did not) and worked their fingers to the bones from *nothing* without Government assistance – LEGALLY – to give you this “entitled” life and freedom you're trying to take away from us, tax BABIES. Yup, babies. Think of how much money they will cost the healthcare system in a lifetime, unlike a Senior Citizen who may only have 10-20 more years left in them. The more babies, the more tax on them. No exclusions for the poor. Maybe if you start taxing babies they’ll start having less of them. Set a number – two, three – after which walks in the Baby Tax. Wanna have a bunch of kids? Great, but you pay MORE taxes, not less. You've got it all backwards, Mr. Obama. Tax credits should go to those who chose some restraint and live within their means, not to those looking for a security blanket in the Federal Government.

      5. Tax people who stay up after midnight. That’s not good for you, either. Less than 8 hours sleep can cause hypertension, cognitive disorders, depression, mania, heart disease, poor work performance, slow reaction time and a wide array of other disorders. Mama Obama can have the electric companies monitor who runs their lights after midnight and they get taxed extra, unlike those of us who don’t drink soda or smoke or have 20 babies – we go to bed on time – why should we have to pay for the health costs and pick up the slack for those that don’t? Yup – tax electricity that is in excess after midnight – will bring down health insurance costs and teach you yunguns how to take care of yourself like Mom always told you. And help with Global Warming, too.

      6. Double tax all-you-can-eat buffets. Enough said.

      7. Tax the *wazoo* off big blue and white Boeing 747s that routinetly do publicity photo shoots and beer runs.

      8. Tax parents whose kids who were never taught the concept and reason for "Time Outs" by the time they reach Kindergarden. Have Educational Testing Service develop a Functional Behavioral Assessment Test for students entering Kindergarten, and tax the Parents of the kids that fail.

      9. Tax credits to parents who will give the above kids a swat on the rear.

      10. Tax expectant Parents who have not participated in a "Nutrition 101" course prior to giving birth.

      11. Tax the Baby Food and formula manufacturers up the wazoo until they successfully complete a remedial "Carcinogen 101" course (at their own expense).

      11. Tax ALL school board members who refuse to mandate Physical Education, Nutrition and Home Economics courses.

      11. Tax Congress, the President, the Governors, the Mayors, the EPA, USDA and the FDA for not having participated in a "Nutrition 101", "Environmental Impact 101" and a remedial "Fidelity" course prior to taking office (and I don't mean the bank).

      Lastly, tax those that don’t take their multivitamins daily. We do, so why should we have to pay the same taxes as those that don’t have time or sense to take care of themselves or eat right?

      Remember that video that came out prior to the Primaries about Hillary Clinton standing in front of a stadium full of zombies vaguely resembling Communism? Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got on our hands now, my friends, except it’s her separated at birth twin.

      And the majority voted for them. Would you like cheese with your whine?

    37. Kelly C, Chicago says:

      Hey Oprah! I have an idea. Instead of increasing "sin" taxes let's tax the corporations who have been paying less & less over the last 30 years & BTW have reaped enormous profits with their unethical, immoral behavior – hello WalMart. Put that in your hat & smoke it Obama. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, we don't need healthcare reform, let's find out how much MONEY the healthcare insurance providers have been pocketing, I mean before they "cook" the books. That might tell us how many lawyers it takes, and how many political payoffs, to avoid any meaningful regulation of the insurance industry – hello AIG. Let's roast us a few democrats, the media, & the folks who bought our government on both sides – revolution 101. Many great comments on this site – I say we need some frontier justice – & I've got what they can smoke – right here!

      Hey Comments – You fools obviously don't know my mother – she grew up in a society that had standards & she's more pissed off than I am. Get rid of your lawyer and grow a pair. You'll make alot of money. The mantra now is CHANGE not conforming to media standards – let's remember, they have none.

    38. Pingback: Tax Hikes for the Middle Class are on the Table | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    39. Pingback: Tax Hikes for the Middle Class? « Dancing Czars

    40. Pingback: The TAXES are coming, the TAXES are coming . . . « As I See It . . .

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.