This post may be after the fact, but it has disturbed me and perhaps others would share their thoughts.
The cigarette tax bill was vetoed and sustained. However, one Senator Byant said he would have recused himself because, “…a cigarette tax would benefit me personally.”
Isn’t he supposed to represent his constituents ? He must have those that would find the raise a reason to finally stop smoking. Or in the case of younger people, a reason not to start. The Senator puts his alleged benefit from the bill before those constituents.
There are many uninsured or underinsured children that would have benefited from the taxes this bill would have raised. Surely some of their parents number among his constituents, but the Senator puts his alleged benefits before them.
I am at a loss to understand how he materially benefits from this tax. If he feels he would fill more children’s Rxs, how much could his income go up ? Also, wouldn’t their be an offset from the Rxs he wouldn’t fill for smokers that stopped or never started ?
Finally, if his thinking is valid, I would expect him to recuse himself from any and all tax reductions, since he would be personally benefitted !
Oh sure. . .
Loading
376 views
RECUSE OR CONFUSE
This post may be after the fact, but it has disturbed me and perhaps others would share their thoughts.
The cigarette tax bill was vetoed and sustained. However, one Senator Byant said he would have recused himself because, “…a cigarette tax would benefit me personally.”
Isn’t he supposed to represent his constituents ? He must have those that would find the raise a reason to finally stop smoking. Or in the case of younger people, a reason not to start. The Senator puts his alleged benefit from the bill before those constituents.
There are many uninsured or underinsured children that would have benefited from the taxes this bill would have raised. Surely some of their parents number among his constituents, but the Senator puts his alleged benefits before them.
I am at a loss to understand how he materially benefits from this tax. If he feels he would fill more children’s Rxs, how much could his income go up ? Also, wouldn’t their be an offset from the Rxs he wouldn’t fill for smokers that stopped or never started ?
Finally, if his thinking is valid, I would expect him to recuse himself from any and all tax reductions, since he would be personally benefitted !
Oh sure. . .
- PAPPY
Bryant said he would have recused himself for the only reason he does anything politically: His daddy, Richie Rich Sanford, told him to.
AG
BUMP.
In the remote hope that the Senator himself might respond.
In the remote hope that the Senator himself might respond.
I'd think the lack of a response is the response in itself
His "financial benefit" came from the tobacco company that donated to his campaign.
His recusal was the same as a "no" vote.
I'm sure it made his corporate overlords at RJ Reynolds very happy.
His recusal was the same as a "no" vote.
I'm sure it made his corporate overlords at RJ Reynolds very happy.
you mean bryant took money from out of state tobacco companies...
then voted in a fashion that benefitted them...
and made no effort to even find out what his constituents wanted?
then voted in a fashion that benefitted them...
and made no effort to even find out what his constituents wanted?
Wasn't there discussion about the Pay Day Lenders that gave him money too?
Wasn't there discussion about the Pay Day Lenders that gave him money too?- gmab
About $3k.
The following is Sen. Bryant's quote from the Senate Journal on May 22, why he abstained from voting.
"H. 3567 essentially supplements the Medicaid system with an additional $300 million in a budget shortfall year with across the board agency cuts. I am a registered pharmacist and am part owner in a pharmacy/HME business. This increase will have a personal financial impact
"H. 3567 essentially supplements the Medicaid system with an additional $300 million in a budget shortfall year with across the board agency cuts. I am a registered pharmacist and am part owner in a pharmacy/HME business. This increase will have a personal financial impact
BUMP.Two minutes seems like a small window of opportunity.
In the remote hope that the Senator himself might respond.- PAPPY
The following is Sen. Bryant's quote from the Senate Journal on May 22, why he abstained from voting.
"H. 3567 essentially supplements the Medicaid system with an additional $300 million in a budget shortfall year with across the board agency cuts. I am a registered pharmacist and am part owner in a pharmacy/HME business. This increase will have a personal financial impact
Damn, I bumped myself off the top ten when I bumped the Blog Lunch.
I did want to give the Senator's surrogate, Lee, an opportunity to reply.
Appears the good Senator is too busy.
I did want to give the Senator's surrogate, Lee, an opportunity to reply.
Appears the good Senator is too busy.
Damn, I bumped myself off the top ten when I bumped the Blog Lunch- PAPPY
Pappy usually I have to reserve this reprimand for JD but in light of your statement I must say what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business but we don't need to read about your bumping yourself off here
Damn, I bumped myself off the top ten when I bumped the Blog Lunch- PAPPY
Pappy usually I have to reserve this reprimand for JD but in light of your statement I must say what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business but we don't need to read about your bumping yourself off here- blogger
Blogger,
You sure have a way with those medical terms. . .
That reminds me of a joke I can't tell here.
Aw c'mon guys and gals, give the Honorable Senator and/or Lee an opportunity to comment on the question of how the Senator would vote on tax cut legislation.
Surely your kidding Pappy, if the man didn't have the nerve to stand up for what he believes in on the senate floor do you really think he's going to come here and say anything more than the conflict of interest line he's been tossing out?
I can assure you Dr Meadors would have voted for this bill. And I could be wrong but I would think a physcian would have even more of a conflict of interest than a pharmacist.
I can assure you Dr Meadors would have voted for this bill. And I could be wrong but I would think a physcian would have even more of a conflict of interest than a pharmacist.
