CREATED 3/18/2013
 WARNING:
This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.
|
OPINION ONLY
Kenneth V Greene
[Prof ]
— A cash-for-comment economist from the State University of New York. He was one of the first to be recruited by Savarese. — The idea of running a team of cash-for-comments academic economists was developed by Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations for the Tobacco Institute in 1983 and 1984. At that time the operation was run by one of O&M's contracted consultants, James Savarese, who had both economics and labor/union contacts, and it focussed on a small core-group of academic economists who were found speaking engagements at various society meetings and also provided some advice to the industry Both the Tobacco Institute and Jim Savarese knew Professor Robert Tollison, of the Economics Department of George Mason University who also ran the Randian Public Choice Society. Tollison and his associate Richard Wagner had long worked for the international tobacco lobby organisation ICOSI (later INFOTAB) and they had excellent contacts with a large number of Hayek [libertarian] economists at other universities, due mainly to Tollison's directorship of the Center for the Study of Public Choice, which was located at GMU, but run as a private think-tank. Tobacco industry money generously supported the Center, and before long Tollison and Savarese were using it as a recruitment and money-laundry service to develop the cash-for-comments network among appropriate academic economists. The idea was to have at least one "Professor of Economics" at a prominent local university, in each of the States, who was willing to support and promote industry propaganda. They were paid on a piece-work basis, averaging $1,000 to $3,000 each for articles planted in local newspapers, or for appearances as 'independent expert witnesses' at legislative or ordinance hearings on smoking bans, or on the raising of excise taxes on cigarettes. The first project began in June 1984 with Tollison and Savarese getting 13 economists on their network to write op-ed articles in support of the tobacco industry position on excise taxes. They were sent first to the Tobacco Institute for 'improvement' and legal clearance, then returned to the economist who was instructed to plant them on a specific local newspaper, then send copies to their Congressman. This became the pattern of operations. Jim Savarese and Bob Tollison (supported by Anne Tollison and staff from the Center) took over the operations from O&M, and they branched out into a diverse range of cash-for-comments academic networks: professors in law, business, marketing, and advertising, and with indoor-air-quality testing experts, risk-assessment specialists, biomedical researchers, etc. These academics all had in common the desire to make money from the tobacco industry without revealing their connection to the 'Merchants of Death'. Savarese and Tollison provided them with the shield from 'legal discovery' so they were able to claim that these were "independent expert opinion articles" (op-eds). Some of the better newspapers may also have paid them separately for their journalistic contributions. Some of the more enthusiastic of these tobacco lackeys were also designated to attend local ordinance hearings on public smoking, and in some cases to attended and gave expert evidence to Congressional inquiries and the like. Their credibility rested on the fact that they were esteemed academics from a university — so, in effect, they mined the credibility of their employer-institution for personal gain. By 1989 Tollison and Savarese seem to have had about 65 Professors of Economics on their books, and about the same number (combined) in the other academic disciplines. The numbers changed over the years, but overall about 100 professors of economics at various state universities were involved.
Decline The Savarese-Tollison partnership appears to have broken up around 1990, but Savarese continued to run the operation for most of the decade — often using Tollison just as one source (but he was better paid than the others).
Over time — and sometimes abruptly — some of these economists dropped out of the operation. Some obviously did not like their articles being modified by the Tobacco Institute, and [who knows] ... maybe some even developed a conscience?
A few new recruits were added regularly to the networks in the 1990 - 1994 period, but the tobacco companies themselves tended to take control of the biomedical research specialist network [probably because of the legal necessity of dealing with them through lawyers to avoid the risk of legal 'discovery'].
Of the many academic cash-for-comments networks, the economists' lasted the longest, and it was also the most productive from the industry viewpoint.
Network beginnings: - 1979 Jan: Academic economists Professor Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner have been recruited by George Berman of Devon Management Resources to provide material supporting the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI... later INFOTAB)
- 1980: Tollison and Wagner had been commissioned by ICOSI's Social Acceptability Working Party (SAWP) to write a monograph "Consumer Protection, Public Policy and Cost-Benefit Analysis"
- 1982: Under Tollison and Public Choice guru James Buchanan, the team of Public Choice economists at Virginia Polytechnic/State University resign en masse and migrate over to the break-away, corporate funded, George Mason University (including their think-tank Center) — thus providing the tobacco industry with a Washington DC pool of unfettered free-market Randian-political economists who are all looking for outside commissions.
- 1982 Nov: A labor economic lobbyist working for his own company (through via Ogilvy & Mather PR), James Savarese, proposes to the Tobacco Institute that they use academic economists (mainly Kenneth Greene of SUNY and Harold Hochman of CUNY) to prepare papers opposing cigarette tax excise increases in New York State.
- 1983: The Tobacco Instittue puts the Tollison/Wagner team (which has the resources of the Center for Study of Public Choice, together with Savarese and Ogilvy & Mather PR to prepare a book "Free to Smoke" and later a propaganda booklet Smoking & Society
- 1984 Jan /E. The Tobacco Institute is now expanding the Savarese-run network of economist to other States — mainly recruiting academic economists to write op-eds for their local newspapers. Tollison is able to provide the recruitment services through his Center for the Study of Public Choice and the Public Choice Society.
- 1984 April: The Tobacco Institute has again put Tollison together with Savarese and his associates to prepare a pseudo-study which will become their economic defence against proposed smoking bans in New York resturants. The TI's Excise Tax Plan for this month lists 14 Public Choice economists in other States who have been recruited to help in the fight against excise increases.
- 1984 Jun: The network has now been formalised under the name Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth. with Savarese as administrator. They have about 15 members overall and 10 active op-ed writers.
DISAMBIGUATION
Thre are a number of Ken Greenes in the tobacco literature. One Kenneth A Greene was on a union hourly rate (most certainly not this one).
|
Some key documents • Economist at the State University of New York
1982 Nov 18: James Savarese is writing to Michael J Kerrigan at the Tobacco Institute. This is obviously very early in their relationship. He is proposing a new way to counter state excise taxes: Dear Mike:
It was good meeting with you again last week. Per your request, I will attempt to lay out a strategy for "dealing with the cigarette excise tax problem in the state of New York.
As we discussed, the potential for increased bootlegging activities as a result of self-extinguishing cigarette legislation — and its implications for reduced excise tax collection may present the TI with an opportunity to take the offensive in both of these battles.
The mission is to target groups that are intensely interested both in the staters revenue-raising capacity and in the overall "fairness" of the state!s tax structure.
It seems obvious that government employee unions in New York State uniquely fit this description: teachers, firefighters, police, state workers, and employees of local government jurisdictions. New York state was having financial problems at that time, as was New York City under Mayor Koch. Both Koch and the Governor-elect Mario Cuomo were likely to support increases in cigarette excises.
Savarese had been the Executive Director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (ARSCME) which...... has 400,000 members in New York state and is a legislative and political powerhouse in Albany. We are on retainer with AFSCME to work on state and local government.finance problems. Savarese suggests that the Tobacco Institute should promote the "recessive" tax line — that such taxes fall most heavily on blue-collar workers. He also suggests targetting liberals ('fairness') and labor-union communities as potential allies.
His friend Richard Pomp is in charge of the New York commission studying the tax structure, and he will assist the TI in establishing working relationships with the union movement. Marcia McGill, our firm's vice-president, served as AFSCME's director of economic affairs and has worked extensively with nearly all of the ad hoc coalitions that have been set up since the mid-1970s to deal with state revenue questions.
Two of our firm's associates are based in universities in New York state. - Ken Greene, a public finance specialist, is Chairman of the Economics Department at SUNY, Binghamton
- Harold Hochman is Director of the Center for Business and Government at Baruch College, CUNY
 
[This appears to be the foundation document for the cash-for-comments economists network, before Robert Tollison and his Center for the Study of Public Choice at GMU was enlisted to help them develop it nationally.
James Savarese & Associates had a close relationship (later a merger) with Ogilvy & Mather PR.]
1983: The records of the economist network have an obvious gap between the suggestion of the conspiracy to mislead by Savarese in November 1982 and the evidence of substanital operations in January 1985.
In 1984, however, Savarese, Tollison and a number of the later cash-for-comment academics were employed in writing and editing a book "Free To Smoke."
1983 Jan 3: Jim Savarese outlines his plans in a further letter to Michael Kerrigan at the Tobacco Institute. The focus at this time is still on the State of New York which is under Democrat control and likely to increase cigarette excise taxes. He offers a three-element plan using his own consultant economists [ Hochman and Greene both work for him]
Our customary method of billing is at an hourly rate of $90 per hour for senior associates with a sliding scale to $70 per hour for work performed by staff economists. We expect the project defined above will take roughly two months with an estimate of between 200 and 250 billable hours.
1984 Jan: Although the documentation is scarce, it is quite clear from that available that the Cash-for-Comments Economists Network had begun to operate by this time.
Kenneth Greene and Harold Hochman had originally joined forces with James Savarese to help the Tobacco Institute lobby in New York State. Then Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner, who had been working for the international ICOSI organisation, had then transfered over Tobacco Institute control to expand the network to other US States.
1984 Jun: /E Remnants of a Tobacco Institute report with information about the Savarese cash-for-comments economists network. [Dated by other documents]. First, the scorecard on the project to get our economic consultants pitching op-ed letters on tax policy, including low-rating of excises: — 31 drafts completed; nine delivered to editors; six published or accepted for publication. They have also been writing material for Sam Howard, Vice President of the Hopital Corpororation which was published by the US Chamber of Commerce (or National Chamber Foundation) Back to our economists, some ten of them have started running economic seminars and pitching the resulting papers for publication in professional journals.
1987 Feb: /E Green has produced an op-ed "Criteria for Tax Reform" from which the Tobacco Institute extracts significant quotes.
...these (excise) taxes artificially raise the process of selected goods and services relative to others, leading to a distortion in the allocation of resources from what would exist if the allocations of resources from what would exist if the government did not interfere with the free market pricing system."
"Excise taxes assume that 'government knows best' and that it can improve on the allocation decisions made by individual buyers and sellers."
"As for equity, excise taxes are considered regressive - placing a heavier burden on those least able to pay...if the purpose of reform is to promote efficiency and fairness in the system, then such reliance on excise taxes will only trade one set of problems for another."
1985 Jan 31: Letter from Hurst Marsahll at the Tobacco Institute to Regional representatives of the TI offering them the services of... ... economists who have been identified by PR to assist TI on the federal cigarette excise tax issue. These people are also available to testify at the state level. They had already recruited 41 economics professors from various state universities. Two states had no representative, while New York had two — both old associates known to Savarese & Associates: Kenneth Greene and Harold Hochman.
The names of key state Representatives and Congressmen were already being included on these lists. The list of economists
1984 Jul: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan. The plan augments our basic lobbying efforts by relying on groups outside the industry — some not regularly associated with the industry — to argue against excise taxes for us.
It is an ambitious program, based on the notion that many of the most effective protests against tobacco taxes will come from groups philosophically distant from The Institute. Many such groups agree with us on the excise issue, even though they disagree with us on other matters.
At the federal level, supporting Congressional members from the tobacco states is essential to our lobbyists. The tobacco members consistently vote as a unified group — something that is rarely seen in Congress today. They are our lobbyists' most important resource.
The program recommends that economic and other consultants assist us in developing, "packaging," and presenting our anti-excise arguments in legislative testimony or meetings with coalition members.
Resources:
Economic consultants with different areas of expertise will conduct research and act as spokespersons for The Institute and organizations supported by The Institute. Specific activities with economists are discussed throughout the tactics.
Tactics: - Stimulate reputable public finance economists at key state universities to determine the validity of state revenue forecasts, perhaps on behalf of state business organizations and present arguments against excise taxes in various forums; e.g., meetings with potential coalition members or budget officials.
- Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
- Retain public finance economists affiliated with non-profit organizations to research the subject and use their findings in forums such as:
- Private meetings with state legislators or staff ;
- formal testimony before government bodies ;
- targeted media appearances;
- speeches before business, civic, labor, and other groups ;
- tax symposia in key states where the proceedings could be published for use in other states ; and
- articles which raise the visibility of key arguments in the business, academic, and popular press.
Strategies: - Presenting specific members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees with arguments prepared by economists with whom they share some common interest; e.g college affiliation, service on the same commission.
- Gaining the support of Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), the most influential labor/liberal tax reform group in the country, in opposition to excise taxes.
- Relying on the AFL-CIO — via The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers Union — to ensure that the labor/liberal tax package that emerges in the next session of Congress does not include tobacco.
Appendix: A list of economists in key states who may be willing to act as industry and third-party spokespersons on the tax issue.
Following is a list of economists in key states who might assist us as experts receiving honoraria. We have begun contacting them to ensure their willingness and expertise. We are asking each about past experience; work with similar issues; previous work with the industry; published articles or research; and availability.
Our intent is to have a group of individuals whom we can call upon as needed to testify, conduct special research and discuss their research projects and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators and the media.
1985 Jan 31: Hurst Marshall has distributed this Tobacco Institute list of economists from the cash-for-comments network. It has been organise by State, and includes the names of Congressmen they wish to influence. Attached for your information are the names of economists who have been identified by PR to assist TI on the federal cigarette excise tax issue.
These people are also available to testify at the state level.
If you feel that this type of witness can be of assistance to you on state cigarette tax issues, please contact Fred Panzer for details and arrangements.
Please notify your lobbyists as to the availability of these people. At the same time, you may wish to ask them for their ideas or suggestions for other economists within their states. This economist will be detailed to make the contact with Congressmen [by sending him/them the published op-ed]: NEW YORK [No Rep listed]
• Professor Kenneth V. Greene
SUNY, Binghampton, New York
• Professor Harold M. Hochman
City University of New York, New York, New York
1985 Feb 21: Roger Mozingo of the Tobacco Institute is sending his state directors a list of resources available to fight against excise taxes in their states. Kenneth Greene of SUNY heads their state list of available economic witnesses for New York, followed by Harold Hochman of City University of New York.
1985 Mar: Tobacco Institute document "Federal Markets" on the likely allies the industry has acquired to oppose the earmarking of cigarette excises for healthcare. It also includes a record of their successful activities in each state
Market: NEW YORK
Positive Actions by Local Allies:
Academics: Professor Kenneth Greene (State University of New York) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the New York Times and Newsday. Although neither paper could use the piece, copies were sent to Ways & Means Members Downey and Rangel and Senate Finance Member Moynihan.
See page 4
See Success List
1985 Dec 12: The Annual Report of the Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Division also lists Green as having writtten op-eds and surreptitiously contacted Congressmen for the Tobacco Institute. The PR Division notes: We believe that the active and creative use of experts — our scientists in particular — gives us an edge. But without question, public smoking is our toughest challenge.
A close second is taxation. In 1985, most of our resources in this area were focused on the federal situation.
That being the case, we concentrated almost exclusively on the home districts and offices of the 56 members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.
We identified and utilized economists from universities in 48 of those districts. Some testified at the four federal tax hearings in which had interest. Others participated in academic symposia attended by Congressional staffers. Others communicated directly with their Congressmen.
And 34 of them wrote op-ed articles on the need to consider excises as part of tax reform. Many of these articles appeared in the principal newspaper in the targeted districts which have, by our estimation, a total circulation of nearly 4 million.
The economists were of great help. [SNIP]
Professor Kenneth Greene (State University of New York) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the New York Times and Newsday. Although neither paper could use the piece, copies were sent to Ways & Means Members Downey and Rangel and Senate Finance Member Moynihan
1986 Jan: The Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Resource Catalogue for their Regional Directors, lists documents, booklets, article, posters and people who can help them fight local public smoking ordinances and threats to raise the excise taxes on cigarettes.
It provides a long list of economists who are willing to speak at hearings, write letters to the editor, or create op-eds for the newspapers to counter any threat to public smoking or possible increase in excise taxes.
The Tobacco Institute offered their Regional Directors the C/Vs of all of these economists, and said "Requests for economists should be made ASAP. Allow at least one week. PR approval needed." He is listed [along with 50 other economists] as a contact in: - Professor Kenneth V. Greene
Department of Economics, State University of New York, Binghampcon, NY
He is available on two weeks notice as a witness for hire. Public Smoking/Witness: Local economists are available on two-weeks notice to provide economic testimony on the public smoking issue. Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.
Tax witness: [He will] "explain why excise taxes are regressive and unfair to consumers and unsuitable and unreliable as a means to increase the federal revenue."
Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.
1986 Jan: The Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Resource booklet for their Regional Directors, lists documents, booklets, article, posters and people who can help them fight local public smoking ordinances and threats to raise the excise taxes on cigarettes.
It provides a long list of economists who are willing to speak at hearings, or write letters to the editor, or op-eds for the newspapers to counter the public smoking or excise tax threat.
It lists him as: - Professor Kenneth V. Greene, Department of Economics, State University of New York
Binghampcon, NY He is available on two weeks notice as a witness for hire. Public Smoking/Witness: Local economists are available on two-weeks notice to provide economic testimony on the public smoking issue. Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.
[He will] "explain why excise taxes are regressive and unfair to consumers and unsuitable and unreliable as a means to increase the federal revenue."
Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.
1986 May: A bundle of 72 pages of information is being circulated by the Tobacco Institute to its Regional Directors. The data is predominantly on the tobacco-industry beat-up known as Sick Building Syndrome and on the general problems of Indoor Air Quality [all down-playing the effects of smoking in confined spaces]
Section 1 is headed List of sources. Local and national experts you can call for quotes or background information. It promotes the services of three specialist lobbyists - Lewis Solmon - an academic who discounts problems of workplace smoking
- Al Vogel - who claims to be an expert in public attitudes to smoking
- Mike Forscey, a labor lawyer/lobbyist who helped the tobacco industry keep the union movement on-side.
They have also provided a list of the 52 Professors of Economics from various State Universities who can be called on to provide services for roughly $1000 a time: This economists name and address are included under "Tobacco & Taxation (listed by state, alphabetically)".
1986 May 30: Fred Panzer of the Tobacco Institute was contacting British-American Tobacco's PR executive, Tom Humber [also Burson-Marsteller and National Smoking Alliance] sending him some of the examples of the network economists. Enclosed are: (1) The first wave of 27 op-ed reprints, (2) A second wave of 32 op-ed articles (21 published and 11 unpublished), sent out on Packwood's first tax reform proposal.
I've also included one on the Chase [Economtrics] study. There are a few others being rounded up, as well as a syndicated excise tax feature series we developed. Out of all this should come something useful for your people. He also lists 21 of the economist and provides copies of many of their recent articles.
Eleven of the network economists have submitted their articles but had them rejected:
- Florida — Wagner — Tampa Tribune and Washington Times
- Indiana — Bohanon — Muncie Star
- Maine — McMahon — Portland Press Herald
- Minnesota — Raab — Minneapolis Star & Tribune
- Missouri — Denzau — St Louis Post Dispatch
- Montana — Anderson — Billings Gazette
- New Jersey — Crew — Wall Street Journal
- New York — Greene — New York Times and Newsday
- North Dakota — Doblitz — Forum
- Oregon — Eberts — Oregonian, Statesman-Journal, and Washington Times
- Tennessee — Anderson — Knoxville Journal, Memphis Commercial Appeal, and Chattanooga Times.
1986 Oct 3: A Tobacco Institute report on the economists network, lists the Congressmen they are expected to influence,and the economist's various academic specialities.
This early list is probably the most detailed of all. A later section of this 43 page document also runs through the 28 main states giving the names and details of witnesses willing to speak to legislators on Taxes (almost exclusively economists), and those available as witnesses for the tobacco industry on Public Smoking issues (economists and a range of others)
A major effort had also been made recently to enlist fire officers and brigades to counter demands for a 'fire-safe' cigarette which had low ignition propensity.
NEW YORK
[Economist:] Professor Kenneth V. Greene, SUNY, Binghamton, New York
[Speciality:] N/A
[Economist:] Professor Harold M. Hochman, City University of New York, New York, New York
[Speciality:] Regional accounts; urban economics; models of public and private choice; deregulation, public finance.
| Tax Witnesses: | Materials available |
|---|
|
Kenneth Greene
&
Harold HM Hochman | Note: Public Smoking bills under consideration in Eire, Buffalo, Nassau and Catteraugus Counties | | Public Smoking Witnesses: | Materials available |
|---|
|
Al Vogel (productivity)
Steve Schlossberg (labor implications)
Lew Solmon (economics)
Bob Klotz (enforcement) | Voter survey
Economic survey
Labor assistance
Response Analysis summaries
Public Smoking topic sheet
"Some Considerations" workplace kits
"In Defense of Smokers" reprint
"The Other Side of the Smoking Controversy" reprint
Letter writing brochure
Advertising. | | Fire: |
|---|
|
| Fire Safety Education Grant to: N.Y. State professional Fightfighters Assn: Robert Gollnick. | | Media Relations: |
|---|
|
| Contacts are in place in Buffalo, Kingston, New York City and Rochester. Contact Bill Toohey for assistance. |
1986 Oct 3: The State Directors for the Tobacco Institute have been reviewing all economics network witnesses in their territories, and culling those who are not actively participating. The Washington DC office is now circulating to its State Directors a list of the economists available who... "...have been identified in several states by J. Savarese as available and hopefully capable to testify in our behalf, or aid in our defense against proposed state of local legislation, from an economic aspect. This list differs from others in providing a list of the economic specialities of each network economist, along with the Congresmen they were designated to influence. Two economists are listed for this state: NEW YORK
Professor Kenneth V. Greene
State University of New York (SUNY), Binghamton, New York
[No specilization listed]
Professor Harold M. Hochman
City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York
[Specializing in:] Regional accounts; urban economics; models of public and private choice; deregulation, public finance.
1986 Dec 11: James Savarese sends Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute a summary of the activities of his network of economists. This is effectively the beginning of the main cash-for-comments economists network.
Dear Fred,
I have attached a list of all the economists we have used along with the projects they have worked on in behalf of the Tobacco Institute. There are now 62 names on the list (Some states have 4 or 5) not counting himself and Bob Tollison. The details given for each consist of State, Regional Division [of the TI], Name, Address and Telephone number. Added to this is a list of the 'Projects' they have completed (in later lists, also the names of Congressmen they have contacted.)
Virtually all of these cash-for-comment academics have been generating op-ed articles for newspapers, or have, in some unspecified way, opposed the Packwood Excise Tax plan — or perhaps helped fake up one of the 'Chase' [Econometrics studies]. A few participants have attended Congressional or government inquiries ['Treasury I') or local ordinance hearings as 'independent witnesses' while secretly acting for the tobacco industry. Two of the 64 members (Ann Harper-Fender and Gary Anderson) were acting termporarily as advisors to Ronald Reagan's Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations— which sought to bring pressure on the FDA, EPA and OSHA and stop them being pro-active with smoking bans.
Other participants have been promoting the industry line at various academic conferences and fora [mainly as keynote speakers at economic society meetings] , and a few of the core-team were involved in brianstorming sessions with members of the tobacco industry looking for new angles for their PR, and for possible research project which might generate some economic propaganda for the industry.
Many of them have joined in with the industry's orchestrated letter-writing campaigns opposing workplace smoking bans. - GSA = Government Services Administration.
- 'Ways & Means' = Congressional committee on finances
- ALEC = American Legislative Exchange Council (a formalised way for big business to directly influence Congressional and State politicians)
- Chase Econometrics = A company that did economic impact studies for the tobacco industry in various locations to 'prove' that smoking bans would destroy local economies.
The references for this network member were: New York [ Region II ]
Professor Kenneth V. Greene
Department of Economics, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York 13901, 607-798-2598
Services rendered:- original excise tax op-ed
1987 Jan 6: Jim Savarese advises the Tobacco Institute that some economists were no longer working for his network. However Greene is still being listed as their main New York economist-for-hire. In order to keep this project straight with respect to the economists, we were specifically assigned to go back to all 42 names on the original list to check to see if the economists were still interested in working for us, still in the same state, and available to meet with representatives from state activities.
We have 34 who fit this criteria and have been contacted. The list is attached. The states that we once had that are currently missing are Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The attached invoice covers the project of re-contacting the original 42 economists and coming up with the present 34 people.
[The invoice is missing, and he gives no details of the current project.]
An internal memo within the Tobacco Institute explains to Regional Directors why they had had Savarese check on availability: The primary purpose of this contact is to determine if a given economist is capable of testifying effectively before a legislative body.
They have been informed that someone from TI will be in contact with them.
We request that an initial contact be made by telephone immediately. Please let me know when this initial contact has been made. Personal meetings should be arranged and completed no later than May 1, 1987.
1987 May 5: Cotton Mather ('Matt') Lindsay of Clemson University has written an article "Excise Taxes: Facist Finance" which is being circulated at the Tobacco Institute. He has discovered through his extensive research that: it is difficult to achieve vertleal equity [equal burden on everyone] through excise taxes because the amount of the tax paid depends on purchases rather than income.
Breweries and tobacco companies write checks to the government for the excise taxes on beer and cigarettes, but here economists agree; these companies pass these taxes on to consumers. One's share of the burden of the revenues raised by these taxes depends on how much beer one drinks and how much one smokes.
The unfairness of these excises is manifest; it is not merely another economists' debating point. The tobacco excise tax, for example, is the most regressive tax in the federal system. It is paid only by smokers who are today predominantly lower-middle income earners, lower income working women and blue collar workers.
Some have argued that these taxes are appropriate because the funds can be earmarked for expenditures like Medicare, environmental protection and even public employee pensions. Why beer drinkers and cigarette smokers ought to pay more for such things is far from clear, however. To the extent that these activities shorten life, they relieve the burdens of Medicare and pension funds by removing potential claimants from the eligibility roles.
Viewed from another perspective, smokers and beer drinkers not only bear a disproportionate share of taxes because they pay excises on these commodities, but they get less for their money, too. Because they live a shorter life span, they collect less in retirement benefits and receive fewer Medicare benefits.
This may be fine for Mussolini, but it is antithetical to tax principles in a free and open society. This simplistic analysis is accompanied by a list of the cash-for-comments economist from the network [to whom it will presumably be sent as an example (See note "at last....")] together with handwritten notes as to the skills and value of each as witnesses at legislatures or local ordinance hearings.
Professor Kenneth Greene:
"Yes: Only in particular situations with controlled information. "
1994 March 16: A group of academic economists including almost all the members of the Tobacco Institute's cash-for-comments network sent an "An Open Letter to President Clinton on Healthcare Reform." This had been organised by David J Theroux, the founder and operator of the Independent Institute apparently with the assistance of an academic network member, Simon Rottenberg. [The institute was well-funded by the tobacco industry]. They say:
In The Open Letter to President Clinton, 565 economists and 76 other scholars from all 50 states and the District of Columbia state their firm opposition to any form of direct and indirect price controls in any healthcare program.
Rationing Health Care: The New Threat of Price Controls, by Simon Rottenberg and David J. Theroux
They use the old straw-man scare techniques of the sky-falling.
In countries that have imposed these types of regulations, patients face delays of months and years for surgery, government bureaucrats decide treatment options instead of doctors or patients, and innovations in medical techniques and pharmaceuticals are dramatically reduced. Which, as anyone who has lived in England, Canada, Australia, etc. knows, is pure rubbish.
Along with Greene and his associates, also on this list of signatories were a number of think-tank lobbyists [including most of the Hoover Institute] and others who worked for the tobacco industry, and the Research Director of the Independent Institute, Robert Higgs, who was also a fill-in network economist.
|
WORTH READING
|
