Night and Day, “Obama lies about taxes” edition

Something tells me that this is going to be a regular feature here at Crush Liberalism.  Anywho, here’s Oprompter and the Vice-Plagiarist on the campaign trail:

“Listen now,” he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, “I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”

An unequivocal “any tax” pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum.

“No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised,” Joe Biden said, “whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.”

And here’s today:

One of President Barack Obama’s campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

It’s kinda like he’s a lying tax-and-spend liberal or something.  Actually, it’s a lot like that.  Didn’t we grown-ups warn you Kool-Aid drinkers this would happen?

Face it: Democrats just don’t like to cut taxes.  They like to raise them, and as this lie shows, they like to raise them on anyone…not just the “rich”!

Dems: Adults who quit smoking are killing kids

More economic ignorance by the left here. Yeah, I know…big surprise, huh? From FNC:

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

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

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

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

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

What. An. Idiot.

Democrats “do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.” In other words, “screw the poor!” I thought they attributed that mindset solely to Republicans? Or is it OK to screw the poor if your motives for said screwing are more pure and noble? After all, poor-screwing can be virtuous, if your party affiliation begins with a “D”, right?

If you raise the price of cigarettes by a large tax increase, and you pledge to use the tax receipts to fund children’s health care, then you are counting on that tax money to be there. Some people will quit smoking because it has become too expensive for them, which Reid seems to applaud. However, won’t these folks who quit smoking be seen as callous individuals for not funding children’s health care? “We need you to slowly kill yourself with emphysema and lung cancer so the children can get health care, and you’re a heartless and selfish b#stard if you quit!”

I guess I should go buy a pack of Camels. It’s for the children.

NH: "Live free or die"?

That used to be their motto, but considering that their identity has been slouching more towards the socialist side of their neighbors in Vermont, I don’t see how they can keep that motto with a straight face. From Boston’s fishwrap:

Governor John Lynch signed a law yesterday banning smoking in New Hampshire’s bars and restaurants.
“The science is clear (no, it’s not. Ed.) — secondhand smoke poses a dangerous health risk, and that is why this new law is so important,” Lynch said.

More than a dozen states and hundreds of cities and counties around the country ban smoking in restaurants, bars, or both. New Hampshire was the only state in New England that did neither.

The law will take effect in 90 days.

Supporters said the ban was needed to protect workers and customers from the health risks of secondhand smoke.

“Smoking is banned in almost every other workplace in New Hampshire,” Lynch said. “We should not continue to subject our hard-working citizens in the restaurant industry to the harmful dangers of secondhand smoke.”

Opponents argued for education instead. They said restaurant and bar owners should decide when or whether to ban smoking, not the state.

We’ve covered the “smoking in private business” debate before, so I’ll try not to rehash it too much here. My only point is that there is nothing in banning a legal product in a private business that gives the impression of freedom, so I wish NH would find a new motto.