RSS
Home › 2008 Elections › S.C. General Assembly Elections
Meadors urges Bryant to support cigarette tax in S.C. Senate District 3 race
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
RELATED STORIES
More S.C. General Assembly Elections
- Gambrell keeps state House District 7 seat
- O’Dell wins sixth term in Senate District 4
- Bowen defeats Dobbins for House seat
Rate this Article
Election Central
Check out the latest local election news!
Go to our exclusive Voter Guide »
View precinct results maps and voter turnout for Upstate races »
ANDERSON COUNTY — Democratic candidate for South Carolina Senate Dr. Marshall Meadors asked for legislators to stand up and be counted after Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed a proposed cigarette tax increase.
Meadors, who is opposing Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, had urged Bryant and the rest of the Senate to override the governor’s veto, but the state House sustained the veto Tuesday, so the Senate will not take any further action.
“We in South Carolina have the lowest cigarette tax in the country. There are nearly 700,000 uninsured or underinsured citizens in our state. Many of them are children,” Meadors said through a news release. “We must promote healthy lifestyles. Smoking remains the major cause of illness and death in our state. Ongoing efforts to treat this addiction are essential. Increasing the cigarette tax is a must. This increase would deter youth smokers, decrease adult smokers, improve health and provide hundreds of million of dollars for health care.”
Meadors criticized Bryant for voting “present” on the bill, instead of voting either for or against it.
Bryant said that vote was the result of a conflict of interest, since he is a pharmacist.
“Being a medical provider myself, the cigarette tax would benefit me personally,” Bryant said. “For ethical reasons and after getting legal advice up here, I thought it was best if I recuse myself.”
Bryant said he was could see both sides of the tax issue.
“I’ve seen how cigarette smoking has caused excessive health costs,” Bryant said. “On the other hand, I’ve seen how Medicaid needs some adjustments to really work. But still, it is unfair to the nonsmoking taxpayer to foot the bill for the smokers’ medical bills.”
He said that while he did support an amendment to increase the cigarette tax to give nonsmokers a tax break, he had to withdraw from the debate when the bill would have added to Medicaid.
A two-thirds majority vote was needed in both houses of the state Legislature to overturn the veto.
Bryant said he would have recused himself from the vote and the debate in the Senate regarding overriding the governor’s veto.
“I think that Kevin Bryant’s excuse is quite weak,” Meadors said. “I think it is a means of getting around voting for essentially a user tax, which would without question decrease smoking in our state, provide significant improvements in health, save lives and bring hundreds of million of dollars into the state to help better fund the Medicaid program and a program for the underinsured. His excuse or his suggestion that he might have a conflict of interest of voting to override the governor’s veto is simply an excuse not to stand up and be counted.”Meadors said the piece of legislation was one of the most important in the state and needed the Legislature’s override.
“Seventy percent of South Carolinians firmly believe that this cigarette tax should pass,” he said. “Studies have shown that for every 10 percent we raise the tax on cigarettes, it decreases adult smoking by 4 percent and decreases the incidents of new-start teen smokers by 7 percent.”
Meadors said that as a family physician, he sees Medicaid and Medicare patients, but that any increase in the funding for those programs would result in a miniscule increase in funds in his practice.
“The benefit that this tax would have on the health and well-being on our state as a whole should be the overriding issue,” he said.
Comments
There are 7 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
This is a cheap political trick by Meadors. The bill that passed the General Assembly created an increase in the government welfare program, Medicaid, that would have resulted in budget deficits or higher taxes in the future because the revenues from cigarette tax will decrease each year.
The General Assembly needs to raise the cigarette tax and lower income taxes instead of pumping more money into inefficient government programs.
What did you all do with the windfall from the tobacco company lawsuits? Never spent it wher it was earmarked for! If I had been the judge I would have stripped that settlement from 99% of the states!
Tackle obesity you fathead.
Yes obesity is just as bad if not worse than smoking heck tax the air we breath, any new user tax is just that a new tax period.
I think the government from Anderson county on up should do a little belt tightening just as the taxpayer is having to do.
Bryant was correct on this one for several reasons. We do NOT need any more taxes. I seen ads to support this tax indicating the amount of money smokers supposedly cost the citizens of SC. Are we going to have a tax on every thing that cost taxpayers such as obesity,ATV's golf carts and what about skin cancer for sun bathing or wearing tank tops? Come on people how far can this go?
Did anyone pickup on how weak Gov. Sanfords excuse for vetoeing, this bill, was? I am a Sanford supporter but he wouldn't be the first politician with a hidden agenda.
I'M SICK OF ALL THIS CUTTING TAXES BS! Think about - the big guys in Washington say "I need to get elected! I'm going to tell EVERYONE I'm going to cut taxes." so they do, but they don't cut spending.... what's worse, tax and spend, or cut taxes and still spend? In the real world, we call that kind of fiscal irresponsibility "being a deadbeat."
so, since it works for the big guys, the state guys decide HEY, I'm going to say _I'M_ going to cut taxes! and it works, and they do, and now the only way to pay for roads, and emergency services, and libraries, and law enforcement is for counties and cities to raise taxes because they aren't getting the funds they used to get from the now $6trillion in debt federal gov't.
and since the economy is tanking, instead of spending money on social services - creating jobs, providing economic spending power to the poor, helping to put money back into OUR economy and country, these same big guys decide - HEY, I'm going to bribe the american public with a check, call it a rebate and forget to mention that next year, they'll have to pay it all back! That'll get me re-elected!
It's time we all realize we are in this together and all put in our fair share to make sure that everyone is taken care of, instead of hanging on to this "Me first and only" mentality.
that's what separates repubs from democrats... democrats think :"there but for the grace of God go I." republicans just think about the "I".
if you continue to cut taxes how are you going to pay for all of the things you all say you want? How are you going to pay for the roads? the quick response time from law enforcement? the ambulance at your door in five minutes when you need it? the schools with quality teachers and quality academics?
can someone PLEASE explain to me where all that money is going to come from if we all don't chip in and take care of it together? or do you all expect someone else to pay for your share, so you can reap the benefits without having to be inconvenienced?
Applause for mom2two. I'm really clapping. ;)
(Requires free registration.)