Behind the smoke screen.

ITEM: The San Jose Mercury News for July 19 editorialized that a compromise tobacco bill on Capitol Hill was probably the best legislation capable of passage. "So a deal in the Senate that is a hold-your-nose compromise for foes of smoking--and for friends of tobacco--might well represent as much progress as can be expected."

However, complained the paper; the Food and Drug Administration "will not be able to ban smoking or prohibit nicotine in tobacco products. It will be able to require a listing of ingredients, limit the location of vending machines, and require that magazine ads be printed only in black and white, among other things."

BETWEEN THE LINES: The various tobacco bills under consideration in Congress enhance federal powers or fund bigger government. Those favoring either the House or Senate variants prefer to disguise this by talking about other goals, such as public health or fairness to farmers. These are smoke screens.

Consider, for example, the House version with the buyout figure of $9.6 billion, paid by taxpayers (though the House later directed its negotiators to press for "private" financing in a conference committee with the Senate). Most potential recipients turn out not to be small farmers but those who own the fights to grow tobacco. According to Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), "85 percent of the benefits go to nonfarmers" who either inherited or bought tobacco quotas and now lease them.

Ten percent of the recipients, who would share $6.4 billion, are slated to cash in 67 percent of the buyout funding, reports the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The top 1 percent could take in $2.6 billion, each averaging more than $590,000 over five years. On the other hand, the bottom 80 percent would divide $1.9 billion, averaging a mere $5,389 over five years. There would be 436,719 recipients, says the EWG, in 50 states, D.C., four U.S. territories, and 16 foreign countries. Taxpayers would make 462 individuals (or companies or estates) into tobacco millionaires.

A prime supporter of the Senate bill is Philip Morris. The corporate giant would be pleased to smoke in bed with federal regulators. FDA regulators, the Wall Street Journal notes, "would severely restrict marketing, which gives it [Philip Morris] an advantage over lesser-known rivals and lower-priced competitors. Put another way, the federal government would become not only a partner of tobacco but a partner of tobacco monopolists."