Tobacco Vs Children


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7026454.stm

US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill to expand a children's healthcare insurance scheme, after it was passed with a large majority in the Senate. Mr Bush argues it takes the programme beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families. The vetoed bill proposed higher tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children.

A small tax on the evil tobacco smoker against poor children in need of medical care... can't possibly make it more emotional. This is probably a bad political move so I tend to think it is principled. For once, kudoz to Bush, it takes lot of balls to veto such a bill.

Share this

Spin through selective reporting

Here's another description which adds some more detail:

[Bush] nixed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that would rely on an unfair, highly regressive cigarette tax increase while extending benefits to families that are far from poor

Rather different once you add the additional information. Yes, the additional information is summarized through the writer's opinion of it, but it is added information nonetheless, information that is omitted from the BBC report. Namely, information about the direct impact of the tax - what stratum it would disproportionately affect - and information about the economic status of its beneficiaries.

Correction - I made an unwarranted assumption (I thought the BBC quote came from the end of the article and therefore provided the only detail). I should have followed the link. The reporting is still selective but not in the crude manner I thought.