Posted on 11/04/2005 11:27:26 PM PST by SheLion
The Tobacco Settlement was never about getting kids to stop smoking. It was about extorting money from consumers for lawyers and government coffers.
This really destroys any hope of another huge courtcase like this. If the money never went to the intended programs...why bother having a courtcase?
It's the same kind of money we "get" from state lotteries. Where has all that money gone over the years?
Bump for later read.
"Cigarette companies are already selling cigarettes like crazy to pay for the $206 billion anti-tobacco settlement won by the states, which are distributing the money as follows: (1) legal fees; (2) money for attorneys; (3) a whole bunch of new programs that have absolutely nothing to do with helping smokers stop smoking; and (4) payments to law firms. Of course, not all the anti-tobacco settlement is being spent this way. A lot of it also goes to lawyers..."
Dave Barry
I'd rather have the money spent on all these pork projects than the BILLIONS that sleezy Texas lawyers got out of the settlement, in spite of the fact that they did virtually NO work on the case. They came to the trough after other states' attornies general had already filed and argued the case. I recall that it worked out to be about $200/MINUTE for their legal fees.
How are youth smaking rates determined? Through questionaires and surveys. When the penalty of underage smoking is the possible loss of your driver's license, as is the case in Florida, does anyone thik any teenager is going to admit to smoking? Of course not - and so they have absolutely no clue whatsoever if there has actually been a drop in the numbers. They just have responses to surveys.
"This was a lawyers grab bag. Nothing more, nothing less."
Precisely
Such court cases are just a money grab.
Most consumers are unaware that there was a major class action lawsuit filed by states on behalf of CD buyers. Sony and others were accused of price gouging. They settled out of court with the states (and some consumers saw $10 "refund" checks).
The (connected, contributing) lawyers got paid in cash. The states got paid largely in CD deadstock as "educational" materials.
Wisconsin sold their windfall in the form of bonds against FUTURE lawsuits for more money from the tobacco companies.
And those that are still steaming over the fraudulent election in Washington state will LOVE to be reminded of how former Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire fought so valiantly for her party. *Rolleyes*
Is it a coincidence how SHE was a State AG, and the Democratic Governor Wisconsin got stuck with (Jim Doyle) who was also OUR State AG both ended up with Governorships after this mess? Hmmmm...
Read on, Freepers and tell me if you can connect any dots between Big Tobacco and say, the DNC:
States squander chance to fight smoking
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
(from their archives)
After Wisconsin's $5.9 billion settlement in the national tobacco lawsuit four years ago, Attorney General James Doyle said his state could afford $100 million a year to fight smoking, $99 million more than it was spending.
His colleagues around the nation agreed: The $246 billion cigarette makers would pay the 50 states over 25 years could finance a sustained war on America's deadliest habit.
Although some state officials favored other uses for the money, school construction, medical research, tax cuts: few disagreed when Doyle called the tobacco litigation funds "the chance of a lifetime."
But in January when Doyle was sworn in as governor, Wisconsin's billions were already gone. That's because the state, facing the worst fiscal crisis in its history, had sold 25 years of tobacco payments for $1.3 billion upfront to balance a single year's budget.
Wisconsin, where four in 10 high school seniors smoke, isn't the only state to cash in its "chance of a lifetime." Faced with unprecedented budget gaps, many have sold or are thinking about selling years of future tobacco payments to pay this year's bills.
It's called securitization: By issuing bonds backed by future tobacco settlement payments, a state can effectively act like the lottery winner who chooses to take a lesser, lump sum now instead of an annuity spread over 20 years.
Most governors and legislators say that while they want to control tobacco use, they also need money immediately to avoid higher taxes, layoffs and program cuts. So they eye the tobacco money, which many of their constituents have forgotten or never knew about in the first place.
But Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, whose state tapped part of its tobacco settlement last year to balance the budget, says it's a disastrous policy.
"Never in my wildest nightmares did I think we would give up this settlement for cents on the dollar," says Gregoire, who was lead negotiator for 46 states in the tobacco litigation talks and who objected vociferously to her own state's (and party's) securitization plan. "It's selling our children's future."
As more than 30 states fight to close budget gaps, she's afraid the selling isn't over: "The money in the tobacco settlement is as addictive to states as the nicotine in cigarettes is to smokers."
She has a seemingly improbable ally: the tobacco companies. They have no say in how the tobacco settlement is spent, and no stand on securitization per se. But Philip Morris USA, for instance, agrees with the anti-smoking lobby: Not enough of the tobacco settlement is going to fight youth smoking.
http://www.quit-smoking.net/news/page8.html
"Read on, Freepers and tell me if you can connect any dots between Big Tobacco and say, the DNC:"
Oops! Let me rephrase that, "...between Democrats screwing Big Tobacco and helping the DNC."
Actually, Diana your first comment was closer to the point - because Philip Morris is in bed with them.
However the only ones getting screwed are smokers and the taxpayers who went along with this boondoggle.
What people fail to realize is that all of the annual payments are based solely upon cigarette sales, when sales drop, so do the MSA payments. That is why so many new companies have sprung up since the settlement, they didn't sign on and therefore don't (or should't) have to pay the additional 45cents per pack.
So what happened? Smokers started switching brands or finding alternatives and PM and others started seeing their sales eroding and the states started seeing the annual payments drop. So what happens then, states start raising cig taxes to make up for the shortfalls, smokers incresingly find other alternatives and PM starts making cushy deals in the various states to force all manufacturers, even ones not involved in the MSA to pay into it, in exchange for not opposing the increased excise taxes.
Thanks for the clarification. It's a scam either way, that's for sure. ;)
Answer: Into the pockets of the politicians and their "friends." Demonize then profitize!
And, just why did anyone think the government wants people to stop smoking? Or, for them to stop drinking? Without the taxes from tobacco and alcohol, the Feds and the states would be bankrupt in a matter of months.
All it has ever been is another way for government to collect more money. They never intended to use it for the purpose they claimed they would.
Far too much to hope for. In fact there is a clause in the settlement expressly forbidding the companies from having ANY say in how the money is spent. Additionally, they can neither pull out of the deal nor stop selling cigarettes until at least 2023.
Cant stop selling until 2023? Nothing like guaranteed tax revenue!
Exactly.
And of course that is only if the original 25 years doesn't wind up off into perpetuity.
Many, many people are getting rich on this deal and many people stand to lose their nice cushy jobs if the money dries up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.