According to Congressional Quarterly (CQ), Jim Webb - along with fellow freshmen Jon Tester (MT) and Claire McCaskill (MO) has demonstrated an "independent streak" in his voting record since he took office in January.
So far, the voting records of three Democrats who unseated conservative Republican senators in Republican-leaning states last fall have set them apart from the rest of the Senate Democratic Caucus. While other Democratic freshmen have voted with a majority of the members of their party more than 95 percent of the time, Webb, Tester and Claire McCaskill of Missouri more often have gone their own way, mainly on budget and ethics issues.According to a Congressional Quarterly analysis, Tester and Webb have voted with a majority of Democrats about 90 percent of the time. McCaskill has voted in line with a majority of her party on about 87 percent of the Senate's roll call votes on which a majority of Democrats are aligned against a majority of Republicans.
The only Senate Democrats with lower party unity scores are Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Evan Bayh of Indiana, all of whom cultivate moderate images while representing Republican-leaning states.
It strikes me as kind of funny that 90% agreement counts as an "independent streak" these days, but so it goes in politically polarized Washington, DC these days. Where did Webb differ from most Democrats? First, according to CQ, on cigarettes:
Webb - whose state is home to Philip Morris USA, the world's largest cigarette maker - was one of four Democrats on March 23 who opposed a non-binding amendment to the budget that called for a cigarette tax increase to provide more money for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Webb said a cigarette tax would hurt the poor.
Here are the full details on that one. Interestingly, Majority Leader Harry Reid voted "no" on that one, as did Virginia's other Senator, John Warner. Personally, I hate smoking and am strongly in favor of raising taxes on cigarettes.
Another interesting vote on March 23 was Biden Amendment No. 529, to "increase funding for the COPS Program" offset by "an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending and/or reduction to administrative expenses." Webb was the only Democrat voting "no" on this bill, which passed 65-33. John Warner also voted "no." I'm not sure I understand what the opposition to this one was about...seems pretty non-controversial to me.
Finally, Webb was one of 11 Democrats voting "no" on Sanders Amdt. No. 545, which would have "restore[d] the top marginal tax rate to pre-2001 levels on taxable income in excess of $1 million and use the increased revenue to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act." Webb was joined on this one by all Republicans and by the following Democrats: Max Baucus, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Kenneth Salazar, Jon Tester, and Ron Wyden. The amendment was defeated 38-58.
I'm not sure what Webb's reasoning was on that last vote, since it appears to get at Webb's goals of restoring economic fairness and reducing income inequality in our country, but Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith says, "[Webb] isn't fiscally conservative but more of a strong believer in fiscal accountability." Smith adds that "People thought he would be a closet Republican, and that's been entirely false."
For sure, 90% agreement with the Democrats certainly doesn't qualify as a "closet Republican," but the vote on the marginal tax rates and the COPS programs are a bit puzzling, I must say. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind those two votes.
Sure, you may agree 10% of the time with the Republican caucus, but they don't count the many times the Republican caucus agrees with you (which brings you in line with your party).
For all the blame placed on blogs and cable news about the partisanship of society. The lockstep nature of votes by legislators is a large factor. Thats what happens when you have gerrymandering I guess.
At UVA, one of my 2 degrees was Sociology. In a class called social statistics we learned all about tobacco and how it is a favorite thing for politicians to beat up on, but when you look at the statistics, tobacco use is overwhelmingly a lower-class phenomenon. I used to be preachy against cigarettes too, but when you realize that if you are addicted to a substance, your money buys however much of that substance you want, and then you buy groceries. Do the math, a pack a day, $4 a pack, and these are lower-income people, often with children, who need a stress reliever. So tax 'em hard, right? I hate sin taxes b/c they prove that people on the left have their heads in their butts sometimes too. Finally, there is a politician who is liberal and doesn't care to take the party line if it is wrong.
I (heart) Jim Webb.
That is the only thing I'm not liberal on though, seriously. Well, maybe wind power until we figure out how to protect those bats/raptors! :)
I'm glad Jim Webb isn't for this nanny-state crap where a government decides something is bad for you and therefore you should have to pay more for it.
Cigarettes can kill over a lifetime of use. Alcohol (my dad is an alcoholic, my mother a smoker) can kill over a lifetime, can kill in a night, can kill others in a night, and can ruin others' lives in a night or over a lifetime. Why not apply your fake outrage to something that actually is a threat to society instead of making poor people use more of their money to pay for something that you think they shouldn't buy?
The fact is that people smoke, making addictive substances more expensive just takes a larger percentage of the user's income. Do you really think it hurts the cigarette CEOs? Nope. They pass the costs on to consumers. They collect profits, not debts.
Webb understands that a large part of the Democratic constituency is from the lower socioeconomic class and it wouldn't really be serving them well if he was trying to make their taxes higher while simultaneously trying to help them economically.
A class I took at UVA, the philosophy of law, spent much time on the weak rationale behind sin taxes in general. Two words: slippery slope. I think there should be a sin tax on gasoline and SUVs. Also, the sin of gluttony, let's tax high-fat foods. Those sins are big to me. We might as well have sin taxes on anything that anyone thinks is bad. Sin tax on mansions because they cause greed. Sin tax on condoms because they allow men to have promiscuous sex. Where along the slippery slope shall I stop? The right would love to open up this slippery slope! Oh, Dems will stop at the products that are bought mainly by the lower classes who have less of a voice to speak up.
I did smoke in college to relieve the stress of working 2 jobs and paying for school. I enjoyed it. I didn't feel very sinful. I hate cigarettes now. I do not smoke.
It is hard for me to believe that there is resistance from Dems on a subject that the evidence clearly shows has negative impacts one of their largest constituencies. If you hate cigs so much, work on making it less likely for you to come in contact with them. Don't financially punish those who do use them. Where does the government get that right?
Life is hard...why make it harder on the poor?
Oh, nevermind, cigarettes are gross...who cares about the negative externalities of taxing the low-income people who use them.
New Jersey: 257.5 cents per pack
Rhode Island: 246 cents per pack
Washington: 202.5 cents per pack
Michigan: 200 cents per pack
etc.
South Carolina: 7 cents per pack
Missouri: 17 cents per pack
Mississippi: 18 cents per pack
Tennessee: 20 cents per pack
Virginia: 30 cents per pack
Kentucky: 30 cents per pack
What you're arguing, as far as I can tell, is that we shouldn't use public policy to discourage smoking. Obviously, Democrats overwhelmingly disagree with this, while Republicans from tobacco states agree. The question is, what costs smokers and society more - paying extra for cigarettes (partly offset by lower rates of smoking, by the way) or getting lung cancer?
I do worry that, as with all addictions, the fact of higher cost may not be sufficient to deter the determined nicotine addict, who will choose instead to invest his income in cigarettes rather than in better food or other more healthful alternatives. My father was seriously addicted to cigarettes and simply could not quit even after he developed debilitating heart disease and cancer of the larynx. The last few years of his life were spent on disability, but still he would take the few dollars he could scrounge from my mother's pathetic typist's salary and buy packs of cigarettes even though they had five kids to feed. I don't think a higher cigarette tax would have caused him to decrease his consumption.
My mother tells me that she sees it as her right to smoke herself to death if she wants because through having a hard life (alcoholic ex-husband) she has come to really appreciate having a cigarette to look forward to every 2 hours or so. When most of your life is dread, then having something (that may kill you in a few decades) to use to keep you in the moment and look forward to something can be a huge help. I've suffered from depression all my life, and a lot of advice on depression is to have simple things to look forward to throughout the day. Tobacco isn't ideal, but some turn to it. Well, I don't think you, Lowell, know me, or my mom, or anyone else enough to say that you know what is in there best interests. Maybe it keeps some people sane to have a crutch. Or do you have no vices?
Actually, I think you should be able to do whatever you wish to yourself so long as you don't hurt others. Clearly, public policy is on the right track in keeping cigarettes out of public areas. I worked at a bar after I stopped smoking and it was terrible indeed. I support such public health measures.
I would say that if you can prove it is a lower-class phenomenon though, and the majority of lower-class people are minorities, then how is this not discriminatory towards minorities? It's like this bizarro jim crow law, for the good of those paying the tax, from those claiming to have those taxpayers' best interests in mind.
The government has a right and duty to discourage/encourage certain behaviors. Sure. How far does that right go?
I agree with Oregon's assisted suicide law, even though I don't think suicide is a good thing. I don't think hospitals should be allowed to charge prohibitively high rates for assisted suicide. Abortion is generally not a positive, but I don't think the government has a right to try to make that prohibitively expensive either. Alcoholism is a problem in every society, but prohibition, or even an attempt to price alcohol above easy-to-purchase levels, increases the amount of crimes in general, as people struggle to get their fix by any means necessary.
Should the government maybe not target poor people to get them to stop smoking, but rather target poverty head-on, or anti-smoking campaigns, something. I just can't believe your lack of understanding on this subject. You act so tough beating up on the tobacco companies, but you're not tough enough to look deeper into the problem. Hating tobacco and taxing them is a knee-jerk reaction that is well-intentioned and anti-lower class. True, big tobacco is dispicable. But as a progressive, I will not support anything that takes money from the poor. You can justify it all you want, or you can look at the data that Jim Webb has seen and that I learned at UVA and try to figure out a more nuanced, thoughtful method of curbing this problem. The poor deserve progressives to think a little deeper to help them, I think. If you can't figure out a way to help people without hurting them, then you should leave them alone.
Peace!