I am completely alarmed by Sen. Hatch's recent actions. If anyone has not seen his latest pro-tobacco commercial, let me explain: In a new commercial funded by RJR Nabisco, Hatch explains that we should oppose a recent bill that a majority of congressmen are seeking to pass that would allow for a dollar tax increase on cigarettes. Hatch claims that the new tax raise will somehow frustrate the smoking youth in Utah that would consequently lead them to experiment with drugs. Ridiculous. What kind of logical argument is this?
A raise in cigarette prices is not going to influence kids to use drugs. The fight against drugs is effective when it starts within the home. In any case, Utah is the most smoke-free state in all of America. Do Utahns feel that they are being fairly represented in this issue? I highly doubt they would feel represented. So how do we explain Hatch's actions then? Is it a failure in logic? I propose that it is a failure in principle.I have always understood that senators are elected to represent the views of their respective states in Congress. However, from what I have been learning in my political science class at the University of Utah, this is not the only influencing factor motivating their decisions. Senators are constantly bombarded with money offers from interest groups who are seeking to pass or kill certain bills in Congress.
This "strings-attached" money is offered to senators to gain their senatorial vote on issues that will financially benefit their organizations. Unfortunately, it is this interest group money that has influenced Hatch to oppose the bill that would allow for a tax increase on cig-a-rettes.
Hatch has accepted large sums of money from RJR Nabisco. This sheds some light on the real reason he is so strangely opposing a majority of Congress as well as not fairly representing Utah in this issue.
Jeffrey Stoddard
Midvale