http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/NEWS0103/710250376/1077/COL02

 

Davis said he supports SCHIP but was against increasing the funding and expanding the program. His vote earlier this month helped sustain President Bush's veto of the bill.

 

"I am a strong supporter of health care for poor children," Davis said Monday during an interview at Northern Kentucky GOP campaign headquarters in Florence. "I co-sponsored legislation and voted for the reauthorization of the existing program.

 

"The real question is getting beyond the sound bites and the politics of fear in looking at how the program is funded."

 

SCHIP subsidizes health insurance coverage for about 6 million children nationally, including 51,775 in Kentucky, at a cost of about $5 billion a year.

 

The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children to the program nationally, mostly from low-income families, at an added cost of $7 billion annually. The legislation would have raised the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack to pay for the increase.

 

Davis, Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning and others said at least part of their concern was driven by their opposition to the tax increase. Because this is a state with a high number of smokers, "the bill would require Kentuckians to pay out $602 million more in increased taxes than children in our state would receive in health-care benefits," Davis wrote in his column.

This wasn't mentioned in the article, but wasn't this bill supposed to make eligible the children for this program if the parents made less that $80,000 per year?

This wasn't mentioned in the article, but wasn't this bill supposed to make eligible the children for this program if the parents made less that $80,000 per year?

 

No, but that is the lie that was used against it. New York requested a limit of $83,000 as an exception. The Bush administration turned it down, as was their right. The House passed a slightly modified version of the bill yesterday. It clarified the income restrictions and made it more explicit that illegals are not eligible. President Bush has vowed another veto.

IMHO raising the cigarette tax to a dollar a pack is a great idea .

No, but that is the lie that was used against it. New York requested a limit of $83,000 as an exception. The Bush administration turned it down, as was their right. The House passed a slightly modified version of the bill yesterday. It clarified the income restrictions and made it more explicit that illegals are not eligible. President Bush has vowed another veto.

 

Just to point out $83,000 in New York is nowhere near $83,000 in Lexington and Louisville. Anyone have access to information to find out the difference because of standard of living?

 

LHL ran a story about 10 years ago I used to use in class that said something to the effect that $75,000 a year in NYC was like $36,000 in Lexington.

No, $83,000 is $83,000. The cost of living may be more in NYC than it is in Paducah but your domicile is your choice. If they can't make it in NYC, let them relocate. It costs more to live in Louisville than it does in Whitesburg. Do we make different rules for Louisville than we do for Whitesburg? Also, you can easily make ends meet in many parts of upstate New York on $83,000 per year.

 

When you file your income tax return, those in NYC use the same tables as do those in Whitesburg.

 

Davis is duty bound to represent and aid those who sent him to Washington. I applaud his reasoning for his vote. By the way, I don't smoke.

No, $83,000 is $83,000. The cost of living may be more in NYC than it is in Paducah but your domicile is your choice. If they can't make it in NYC, let them relocate. It costs more to live in Louisville than it does in Whitesburg. Do we make different rules for Louisville than we do for Whitesburg? Also, you can easily make ends meet in many parts of upstate New York on $83,000 per year.

 

When you file your income tax return, those in NYC use the same tables as do those in Whitesburg.

 

Davis is duty bound to represent and aid those who sent him to Washington. I applaud his reasoning for his vote. By the way, I don't smoke.

 

First, lets be realistic, no politician can take this position because they would never get elected on a national basis.

 

Two, be careful what you wish for because there is more people in NYC than in KY, so with your thought process, NYC should be getting all the attention and we get the leftovers. And if you don't like the leftovers, move to NYC.

 

Third, and as you rightfully said Davis did a good job defending his constitutients, the NY congressmen did the same by asking for it.

 

Fourth, using you mindset, there should be no farm subsidies since it basically ONLY benefits one section of the country and not all sections of the country.

First, lets be realistic, no politician can take this position because they would never get elected on a national basis.

 

Two, be careful what you wish for because there is more people in NYC than in KY, so with your thought process, NYC should be getting all the attention and we get the leftovers. And if you don't like the leftovers, move to NYC.

 

Third, and as you rightfully said Davis did a good job defending his constitutients, the NY congressmen did the same by asking for it.

 

Fourth, using you mindset, there should be no farm subsidies since it basically ONLY benefits one section of the country and not all sections of the country.

 

Davis isn't running for national office. He is representing our district. His duty is to represent his constituents. He is doing so quite well.

 

As for the "leftovers". I suggest that everyone take care of his/her own needs rather than always looking to the welfare system for support. For those who are truly not able to support themselves, we should take care of their needs. However, for those capable of funding their own needs, why should the rest of society support them?

 

We need to draw the line somewhere. Keep in mind that the government has no funds. It depends on those of us who are self sufficient to supply the money to "operate". I have no problem with helping the needy. I just don't think we need to continually expand the definition of "needy". There is too much emphasis in society on "rights" and too little emphasis on "responsibility". I believe Davis is of similar philosophy. Good for him.

Davis isn't running for national office. He is representing our district. His duty is to represent his constituents. He is doing so quite well.

 

As for the "leftovers". I suggest that everyone take care of his/her own needs rather than always looking to the welfare system for support. For those who are truly not able to support themselves, we should take care of their needs. However, for those capable of funding their own needs, why should the rest of society support them?

 

We need to draw the line somewhere. Keep in mind that the government has no funds. It depends on those of us who are self sufficient to supply the money to "operate". I have no problem with helping the needy. I just don't think we need to continually expand the definition of "needy". There is too much emphasis in society on "rights" and too little emphasis on "responsibility". I believe Davis is of similar philosophy. Good for him.

 

Not talking about leftovers for that.

 

Let's say, money is up to repair bridges and roads. NYC has more people than KY. Using your theory, NYC should always get the most and KY what is leftover. Since NYC has a larger % of the population than KY. And if you don't like it, your suggestion was move from KY and to NYC.

 

I agree that Davis is doing a good job representing us and why last election was the FIRST time I had voted for him.

 

And yeah there are different rules for different parts of the state. Want to start a business, put it in the inner city and you can get a free loan that you might never have to pay back.

The reality is that political power determines who receives the new roads and bridges. If your senator/congressman is in a position of power, you benefit. The best example is probably Robert Byrd. Byrd brings hundreds of millions in projects to West Virginia which is one of our smaller states populationwise. Why? Because no senator is more powerful, particularly with the Democrats in control, than is Byrd. Population has nothing to do with it.

 

To be honest, assuming the Democrats take the White House and continue to control the legislative branch of government, Davis will be able to get very little for our area. On the other hand, power is the major reason why we need to keep Senator McConnell. Though in the minority, he is a powerful figure in Washington and, if the GOP ever retakes the US Senate, he will be majority leader.

 

Your final paragraph is correct in regard to welfare payments to those who qualify for an inner city business loan. That is, as I said, merely welfare and is, in fact, a type of welfare program open to a lot of waste, graft, and failure. My point is that, regardless of where you reside, $83,000 is taxed using the same rates for federal income tax purposes. There is no cost of living adjustment.

The reality is that political power determines who receives the new roads and bridges. If your senator/congressman is in a position of power, you benefit. The best example is probably Robert Byrd. Byrd brings hundreds of millions in projects to West Virginia which is one of our smaller states populationwise. Why? Because no senator is more powerful, particularly with the Democrats in control, than is Byrd. Population has nothing to do with it.

 

To be honest, assuming the Democrats take the White House and continue to control the legislative brance of government, Davis will be able to get very little for our area. On the other hand, power is the major reason why we need to keep Senator McConnell. Though in the minority, he is a powerful figure in Washington and, if the GOP ever retakes the US Senate, he will be majority leader.

 

Your final paragraph is correct in regard to welfare payments to those who qualify for an inner city business loan. That is, as I said, merely welfare and is, in fact, a type of welfare program open to a lot of waste, graft, and failure. My point is that, regardless of where you reside, $83,000 is taxed using the same rates for federal income tax purposes.

 

Absolutely it is.

 

But $83,000 is a lot closer to the poverty level in NYC than it is in Lexington.

 

So some would use that $83,000 figure to sell the argument politically that this program is letting kids into the program of upper middle class that does not need to be in the program.

 

When the REALITY is that $83,000 in KY is UPPER MIDDLE CLASS but in NY WHOM PROPOSED THAT AMOUNT, it is closer to the poverty level than it is the upper middle class.

The idea of the so-called "poverty level" is as much, if not more, based on politics than it is on economics. My main problem is that I don't believe welfare (and that is what we are actually talking about) for NYC residents should be increased at the expense of Kentucky's tobacco industry. If NYC needs a higher threshhold, how about making up the added funds with a tax on such items as tickets to Broadway shows or NYC taxi fares?

 

If there is to be added financial pain, it should be felt by those in the area causing the pain. Davis's vote was proper. He does not represent the interests of the people of NYC and has no responsibility to provide for them at the expense of his own people.

The idea of the so-called "poverty level" is as much, if not more, based on politics than it is on economics. My main problem is that I don't believe welfare (and that is what we are actually talking about) for NYC residents should be increased at the expense of Kentucky's tobacco industry. If NYC needs a higher threshhold, how about making up the added funds with a tax on such items as tickets to Broadway shows or NYC taxi fares?

 

If there is to be added financial pain, it should be felt by those in the area causing the pain. Davis's vote was proper. He does not represent the interests of the people of NYC and has no responsibility to provide for them at the expense of his own people.

 

You realize that this is not welfare but health care for children. Not talking about food stamps for cigarettes program but providing health care to kids.

 

I think you can justify it by the KY tobacco farmers raising the tobacco crops that are causing at least some health issues.

No, ladiesbballcoach, it is what it is. It is welfare. Whenever one pays extra to provide for the alleged needs of another who supposedly cannot pay his/her own way it is welfare.

 

If we start justifying extra taxes on all who cause some health issues, we should start with the fast food industry, move on to the liquor industry, and be sure to include the movie, music, and television industries. Although it is not politically correct to say so, I feel certain that the entertainment industry has and is causing far more real harm to our population than is the tobacco industry. As I said, I don't smoke or chew tobacco any more although I did so in my earlier days. An occasional good cigar is far less dangerous to our children than is a hip hop recording from one of the usual sources.

No, ladiesbballcoach, it is what it is. It is welfare. Whenever one pays extra to provide for the alleged needs of another who supposedly cannot pay his/her own way it is welfare.

 

.

 

If it is a program for those that are able to provide for themselves, I would agree with you.

 

But it is not. It is for kids who did not chooose to be put in the position they are.

 

Won't get a disagreement from me on those taking care of themselves, but when you put kids in the mix.

 

Remember why did the early church get deacons in Acts? To take care of the widows and mothers who couldn't take care of themselves. Biblically, there is NO DOUBT that we need to take care of kids in situations that they are not being taken care of.