I was stunned when I heard that the ballot initiative to provide healthcare for children by imposing a cigarette tax had been defeated. We hear all the time how important it is to provide healthcare for the kids and smokers are evil, right? But Oregon, of all places, decided not to tax one group to pay for the healthcare of another. This is absolutely amazing!
I’ve been reading the reasons that people voted against it and the typical answer is they didn’t think it was fair that smokers were targeted to pick up the entire burden and they were skeptical that the government could afford it when the pool of smokers keeps dwindling. They realized that if that happened, the government would have to raise the money somewhere else and that would mean higher taxes for all. They didn’t trust the government with their money and they certainly didn’t want to add a tax to their constitution:

I voted against this measure because I do not trust ANY politician to spend my money.
[…]
I agree that the children need healthcare and we should do more, but to rely on a politician to provide it is irresponsible and foolish!
[…]
I was not at all surprised that it failed. No one I talked to want a tax linked to the constitution and no one wanted so much money left to be spent on unidentified programs. Also the fact that they get one tax in and they will just keep adding others turned a lot of people off. It was poorly written and very sketchy as to how they would continue to pay for the insurance later down the road.

If a blue state refuses to provide healthcare at the expense of smokers, what does that say about the future prospects of a candidate who has made universal healthcare a campaign plank? If NJ (we had two fiscal ballot initiatives and both were defeated), NC, Utah and Oregon all voted down increased taxes, what does that say about the prospects of a party that just proposed the “mother of all tax increases?”