Posted by KidYendor on May 28, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The upholding of the veto is wonderful news and libertarian South Carolinians have something to cheer about for once. Thank you Bobby Harrell and Gov. Sanford. The welfare state is wrong and Medicaid should be phased out. This is a day for America to rejoice.

Posted by buff_o_rilla on May 28, 2008 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to go Gov. Sanford, Nice to stand up against the tax and spend burocrats in the state of South Carolina, There is way to much taxation in this state for what little the people get out of it!!!

Posted by ForPnC on May 28, 2008 at 4:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

THANK YOU!

Posted by Paul on May 28, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another poorly written bill and both sides can say we did good. One side saying we wrote the bill but its was voted down (blaming others and pointing fingers) ... the other side saying the bill is wrong therefore appeasing the opponents and making Sanford look good .

Posted by carolinadude on May 28, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shouldn't medicaid be reformed prior raising taxes? Is this program the supplier of funding to medical ctrs. forced to provide free health care to "unauthized citizens"? Doesn't limiting taxation in fact limit government while forcing it to be more accountable and transparent?

Posted by carolinadude on May 28, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas 1776,
I'm sure you're familiar w/the Boston Tea Party. You know we also had a Charleston Tea Party. FELLOW CITIZENS, NO NEW TAXES!

Posted by gencon1 on May 28, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank God someone has enough sense to stop the entitlement train!

Rep. Joe Jefferson, D-Pineville, said the legislators owed it to their constituents to pass the bill.

"What happened, for example, to wanting to be our brother's keeper?" he asked.

The quote above astounds me. Socialism doesn't work. Where do these people come from? They should skip bible class and try an economics class.

Keep fighting the good fight Governor!

Posted by ccfirefighterchick on May 28, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Harrell. Wanting to raise the income limitations to fund more families will ultimately hurt the state. I don't think I should be out there paying more taxes just because I smoke. People need to realize that what causes pregnancy and protect against it. If you can't afford to have the kids, don't get pregnant just so taxpayers can foot the bill.

Posted by sig on May 28, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the veto! The government agencies need to start doing their job. I reported fraud to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). But, the person in question still receives Medicaid benefits, etc. DHHS only cares about the numbers. After all, only $469 million was spent on births by unwed mothers last year in South Carolina. If DHHS and all government agencies would enforce the laws on the books, they could reduce the taxes - not increase the taxes. If the number of Medicaid eligibles shrinks that means they receive less federal funds. That means that some of there $90K+ annual salary jobs might be deleted. Job security for them. They could care less about what the taxpayers say!

Why are they not going after the fathers of all these kids and make them pay for the medical costs. Sorry, but I just do not feel we should support people who make bad decisions and have 6 kids from 6 different dads. I have worked over 40 years to pay for these welfare programs and it needs to change NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Early on May 28, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hang my head and shake it at the ignorant, back woods dumb butts in our government. How do these people get elected, by the size of the pig roast the host?
Thank you Booby Harrell for having forethought on this issue.

Posted by Newt on May 28, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not support raising the income level for Medicaid or Medicare, however smoking is a majority of the indigent care cost our state has to eat. Therefore it makes since that smokers should pay a higher tax and I smoke. The true winner is the tobacco lobby in SC!
Medicaid and Medicare are not bad things! One of my children, no fault of her own, was born with a birth defect. If it was not for Medicaid we would be destitute! We do not accept any money from the state, even though we qualify; we just have her medical issues covered. Would you “no tax” righties throw her out with the bath water?

Posted by Larz13 on May 28, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Use the cigarette tax to pay for a reduction in income taxes and then ALL WORKING SOUTH CAROLINIANS can benefit from the windfall. The governor proposed this many years ago but some of the socialists in state government refused to act on it.

Posted by cnast777 on May 28, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You sheep commenters are friggin' ignorant.

Sanford and Harrell will raise cig taxes anyway next year to suit their needs. Blessed are the poor.

http://thestatecom.typepad.com/ygatoday/...

FYI:
Sanford proposes flat income tax, higher cigarette tax
Gov. Mark Sanford today proposed lowering the state's income tax by allowing residents to choose an optional, lower flat tax rate.
Sanford would pay for the tax cut by raising the state tax on cigarettes.

FYI: You gotta read this
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensbl...

Posted by sig on May 28, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Medicaid/Medicare programs are not bad if they are administered correctly. The bottom line is our government agencies do not do their job. DHHS is one of them. Government Bureaucracy at its worst. If they did, there would be more funds for those that truely need assistance. Whether it be Medicaid/Foodstamps etc.

Drive by Social Services on Rivers and see the number of $50,000 vehicles in the parking lot asking for the taxpayers to buy them food and pay for their medical bills. My car is 6 years old and cost $17000 new. I am a responsible citizen and am tired of paying for the free rides these folks get at our expense.

Posted by Early on May 28, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Newt, Smokers are no where near what fat and obese people are in terms of a burden on the health system. Tax the fat!
I believe we are number 5 or 6 in the nation of the fats!

Posted by Kerry on May 28, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just watching and listening to the likes of Ott, Cobb-Hunter, Jefferson, and other welfare mongers attempting to override the veto was enough to make anyone sick. The cigarette tax needs to be increased by a lot more than 57 cents, but the revenue should applied to lowering the state income tax as mentioned above or used to maintain state roads and bridges that are falling apart. This would insure everyone benefits from what hopefully would become a declining source of funding that Medicare could not rely on anyway, since higher prices might discourage smoking. Providing health insurance for the children of the poor will only encourage them to have more kids they cannot afford.

Posted by nappyd on May 28, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, withstood personal attacks when he brought poor children into the mix. In the last three years, more than half of the births in South Carolina were paid for by Medicaid, Harrell said.

"What kind of message are we sending to our state's future generations? Using this tax to expand a government entitlement program will set up an expectation of non-responsibility and establish an entitlement society," Harrell said. "These children will grow up being taught that it is the government's job to care for them."

Yeah Harrell. It's not the government's job to be "For the people, by the people" is it? Seriously what kind of idiots would come up with that idea? And a family of four would be scraping by on $54k a year. Way to stay in touch with reality.

Posted by RTC on May 28, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Medicaid was created to be a safety net for the poor; $54,000 a year is not poor," Harrell said.

If every family that made up to $54,000 would qualify for Medicaid, then the system would be broke in no time.
They have got to be joking!
I'm sorry, but Rep. Harrell is correct in this statement.

Posted by AHLeland on May 28, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I shudder to think what would happen if the already out of control Medicaid system got any bigger. It absolutely blows my mind. I have two friends who were case workers for medicaid and both quit because they couldn't stand the way things were run. People lied and cheated but it was rare that my friends were ever able to actually deny anyone.
On a related subject, I have also had a woman offer to let me buy milk with her WIC card after she found out I didn't have it. She asked if I had any kids and I said no and told her I'm only 25. Her response was that she had 3 by then! This was an accomplishment in her mind.
Should we raise the cigarette tax? Absolutely. Should medicaid grow with it? Absolutely not.

Posted by Newt on May 28, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Early - I concede on the obese thing. But come on, smoking is a burden on our system.
And why would we use cig taxes for roads? That’s how this state has gotten so *ss backwards, nothing in relevant to anything else. Property taxes on vehicles should pay for roads. My home property taxes should pay for fire department services, police services, schools, etc. Until we get of special interest and lobbyists we will never have the people’s voices heard. The fat cats will continue to line their own pockets with the sweat of the hardworking middle class. Heck, we support everything! We are the ones who get up every day and go to work so we can buy the products that support the economy. We are the ones who carry the tax burden in this state and the US. The middle class are the backbone to this country and until we stand up and kick out the good ole boys nothing will ever change.
It is just a circle of stupidity spiraling into another stupid circle.

Posted by AHLeland on May 28, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the $54,000 a year comment, I think we need to re-evaluate what we consider being "poor." I think people feel that they are entitled to things - tvs, cell phones, cable, cars, etc - that are not actually necessities. Think about what it actually takes to live: food, clothing, shelter. Granted I am single and make a decent living and still manage to be broke by pay day but I do this to myself. I choose to drive a SUV, go out to lunch, chat on a cell phone and have nice things. I don't have to. I could have plenty of money to spare if I chose to live more within my means.

Posted by Charles_Town on May 28, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree a cig tax is needed, but not to fund those programs, at least not until they are investigated and revamped properly. I have noticed that more companies (though still not enough) are able to raise the insurance premiums for smokers. This would make sense to me, also should be done for other with bad habits, not medical conditions, but those who are choosing to do things bad for their health.

Posted by KidYendor on May 28, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Send these liberal democrat SC legislators an email that you are happy that the veto was sustained and that Medicaid expansion for the time being has been stopped in its tracks.
Gilda Cobb Hunter gch@schouse.org
Robert Brown rlb@schouse.org
Harry Ott HLO@schouse.org
Joe Jefferson JeffersonJ@schouse.org
David Mack DJM@schouse.org

Posted by Early on May 28, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

newt, I agree with your statement but i would like to compare this scenario with what Kerry did in Massachusetts which is now 4 billion in debt, that's b for billion. After raising the cigarette tax the system became bankrupt immediately and they people like you describe above, middle class had to foot the bill till middle class started becoming the poor then it just spiraled out of control. I don't care if they raise the tax, they should but i do care what they spend it on. I am all over helping those in need but not giving to those who are capable.

Posted by mcdian on May 28, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all are missing a major assumtion. You are assuming that the money from the tax will go towards any type of healthcare. I have yet to see any tax that the government imposed go toward the item that it was voted for. The money will be diverted in such a manner that we the people can't tell where it went.

Can you name any tax that went for its intended purpose. For instance, why isn't my vehicle tax going toward the roads.

Posted by KidYendor on May 28, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HLO@schouse.org would not go through so try hlo@schouse.org when writing a short anti-welfare state/Medicaid expansion
email to Harry Ott. Ott said:"Someone hasn't read the same Bible that I have." Harry does your bible say "thou shalt not steal"? Stealing money by government taxation to promote promiscuous unwed motherhood is of the devil. Stealing money to provide for unaccountable lifestyles and removing responsibility from the dictionary of government is of the devil.

Posted by trod1 on May 28, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As long as you have project hippos pumping out 15 kids.while naming 32 suspects as fathers.illegals getting free health care.Uncontrolled spiraling costs of medical insurance by insurance company's{organized crime at its finest}.our healthcare system will fail and continue to fail no matter what you tax or how much.

Posted by GeecheeBoi84 on May 28, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AHLeland: $54,000 is MAYBE enough for ONE person depending on their lifestyle, but a "family of four", that's DEFINITELY poor!

But if you ask me, the bill made no sense to begin with; to honestly believe they would use proceeds of $159 million towards health insurance for low-income workers... :-/ Man this is South Carolina, be real...

Posted by AHLeland on May 28, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Geechee, I asked a co-worker who does have a family of 4 her opinion and, while she is fortunate to have a good job and a husband with the same, she said that $54,000 is not poor. Just remember, you are not poor if you can not afford luxuries. That just means you can not afford luxuries.

Posted by GeecheeBoi84 on May 28, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Understood AHLeland, but people often confuse being poor with poverty. You can still have everything you NEED, but barely making ends meet or just getting by, is poor. Poverty is not knowing when your next meal is coming, alternating the same clothes throughout a week b/c that's all you have, literally not having two pennies to rub together, etc. $54,000 after taxes is roughly $1000-$1600 every two weeks depending on investment options, allowances, witholdings, etc. Conservatively bugeted, that may be JUST ENOUGH to support 4 heads, granted 3 of them aren't children.... and you don't have a car note, car insurance, water, light, phone bill, loans to pay back, credit card bills, and your kids aren't wearing out their shoes or outgrowing their clothes.

Posted by AHLeland on May 28, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are right about poor vs. poverty but I still beg to differ about $54,000 being poor. I just looked at my budget - which includes all the things you list except the children - and added on for more rent, groceries and miscelaneous expenses for clothes, shoes and school supplies and it balanced with high estimates for all the expenses. Granted, I had to take some things out (I include a sizeable alcohol allowance in mine and have cable TV and drive a gas-guzzling SUV).

Posted by AHLeland on May 28, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geechee - I must say, it is nice to have a civil exchange on this board for a change. Thanks.

Posted by buff_o_rilla on May 28, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geecheeboi84, You do realise $54,000.00 is around 27 dollars an hour for a 40 hour week. If a person was poor because he isnt able to budget his money correctly and save money instead of going in debt for everything that catches his eye and control his spending to necessities instead of niceities he would live very well with a spouse and 2 kids. Most ppl would love to make 27 dollars an hour! When ppl realise consumerism is a losing game and learn a lesson from their grandparents that lived thru the depression, knew how to save money and get a head in life using their savings instead of going in debt for it. But what else do you expect we have become a generation of "right nows" and instant achievment in our own minds. Nothing earned rarely ever comes easy in life and without some sacrifice!

Posted by GeecheeBoi84 on May 28, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AHLeland - thanks to you, as well

Buff - I had a teacher once break down her finances to the class. We were all ecstatic to hear of her $56K salary, but quickly taken aback once she told us she was left with $35-36 after tax. It was actually a rant on the burden welfare causes on society, that spurred her to continue subtracting from her net worth. With 2 kids and an ex-husband who doesn't pay child support, she wasn't far from my definition of poor. Totaling MY expenses without cable tv, internet, or any other "niceities", $54K would leave me with roughly $7-800 a month without ANY miscellaneous or frivolous spending (student loans are a b****!!), and I'm single! But I guess like in every other facet of life, nothing is the same for everybody.

But what you said IS very true, people rarely do know how to save money these days.

Posted by luvmydogs59 on May 28, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by sig on May 28, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Drive by Social Services on Rivers and see the number of $50,000 vehicles in the parking lot asking for the taxpayers to buy them food and pay for their medical bills. My car is 6 years old and cost $17000 new. I am a responsible citizen and am tired of paying for the free rides these folks get at our expense."

You can't judge about a situation you know nothing about. I have a 2007 Camry Hybrid, which I bought during financial good times. Not a cheap car, but at the time I was able to buy it outright. Well guess what...someone's situation can change in a heartbeat! And that's what has happened to me. I became disabled and can't work, am fighting with social security, will have to pay COBRA on my medical insurance (approx. $500 per month) which that alone will wipe out my savings in a short time, but I have to have medical & prescription coverage. I'll probably run out of money before I get social security, which means I'll have to drop my medical coverage. I'll have to drop my pride and get food stamps when the time comes, because I need to eat. Will I still have that car? Yes!! Do I still have lots of gold jewelery, etc.? Yes!! These are things that I have from good times gone.

So don't judge or comment on things you have absolutely no knowledge of.

And, yes, I'm a smoker, but even with the tax staying where it is, I'm in the process of quitting because I simply can't afford to smoke anymore. At this point, it's a luxury for me and I'm cutting down most of what would be considered a luxury in my life. Gotta do what I gotta do.

Posted by GeecheeBoi84 on May 28, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

raregar - lol, so lemme see if I got you right... Instead of working and using loans to pick up the slack of tuition, I should have gone into the military instead of [straight to] college, to leech a "free" education from a failing G.I. bill that's ALREADY going broke, just to sacrifice the next 6-10 years of my life to be Uncle Sam's slave??? You say that's "sorry", and that's funny... As far as I'm concerned, you and nobody else is paying those loans back, and if I fail to pay em, creditors are coming for who?.... Oh, aight... just checking. So if my financial status would be in turmoil for failure to pay back a 30K+ BILL, and this discussion is on being poor, please break it down to me how it's "sorry" to handle my responsibilities like a real man, calculate, and PAY my bills?

You see that innit, AHLeland?? They keep pulling you back in...

Posted by GeecheeBoi84 on May 28, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And just a sidenote, I've got plenty of friends who went the military route.... Their G.I. bill stipend is barely enough to cover Trident's tuition in full, let alone Clemson...

Posted by YankeeLiberal on May 28, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto to LuvMyDogs59 - don't judge people without walking in their shoes. Although I agree with those who say that there is no excuse for living within one's means in good times and bad (my fam and I live in a modest home, costed in the $150s, and drive small cars, don't buy expensive things, etc), so the hard times don't feel as bad.

I guess the question comes down to whether it's our responsibility to take care of each other as a society (yeah, I know, here's comes the anti-liberal flames!!), or is it truly to each their own, all of us each cover our own asses, and to hell with the fact that poor kids have no health care and no shot at a great, more than adequate public education?? If the cigarette tax shouldn't be raised to cover poor kids' health, what should? Nothing at all? Since SC is among the least healthy (and poorest states) in the nation, perhaps we should say to those less fortunate, your on your own, dig yourself out, we more fortunate are in no way responsible to help you? Shame on us.

Posted by UrGatorbait on May 28, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if those crowing for the victory of keeping th gubmint outta my personal life with no cigarette taxes will turn down free gubmint provided health care when they can't breath and the host of smoking related illnesses? Doubt it.

Posted by buff_o_rilla on May 28, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

luvmydogs59, I hate to inform you that you cant get food stamps if you own a car that i newer than 10 years old. So if you want food stamps you will have to downgrade your car to get them.

Posted by buff_o_rilla on May 28, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UrGatorbait, Why tax a smoker when there are other things that affect a persons health as much or more, such as obesity, genetics, alcohol, drugs. As soon as they can make each pay their portions for there own short comings i'll feel fine about paying taxes on a pack of cigs, but i'll be damned if i will go along with being taxed to provide free health care for alcoholics, drug abusers, obese people, bad genetic structure and lets not forget the lazy asses that are healthier than anyone that want a free ride. They should be paying extra for their own effects and costs they impose on the medical system.

Posted by feb251939 on May 29, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lovemydogs59, I really hope you are a single person because putting a family through the humiliation of turning to the public welfare services while you hold on to your expensive car and jewels would be an abomination.

I can sympathize with your health problems but hanging on to luxury items when you are asking tax payers to help you out is just sad and, if I'm not mistaken, illegal.