Category: Guest Authors

This article is being published with the kind permission of Chris Freind

By Chris Freind

You have to give credit where it’s due.

Thanks to Mayor Nutter, folks have laughed more over the last two
weeks than at any time in recent memory. If laughing is good for the
soul, Philadelphians are in great shape.

What was so funny?

Watching Nutter keep a straight face while proposing another 10
percent hike in property taxes (which would be in addition to last
year’s “temporary” 10 percent increase and the 100 percent increase in
the city portion of the state sales tax), higher parking fees, and yes,
the resurrected sugary drink “soda” tax, which would impose a two-cents
per ounce tax on sugary drinks.

But Philadelphians’ collective rage at the Mayor’s ideas was downright priceless.

If it wasn’t so funny, it would be pathetic.

*****

The fact that there is any outrage or surprise is inexplicable. What did these people expect?

“These people” being the 80 percent who just voted for Nutter in last month’s primary election.

No, that’s not a typo. A whopping eight of ten Philadelphia voters
ushered Nutter back into the Mayor’s office (a done deal, since he
cannot lose in November), welcoming him back for a second term with open
arms.

To those folks, a suggestion: stop doing drugs. They make you hallucinate.

What part of The Nut’s sham did you buy? That he would make the
city’s business climate better so that it could attract more companies,
thus creating more jobs? Freindly Fire is no economist, but it knows
that when you want less of something, you tax it. That’s fact, not
opinion. So based on the crushing levies being proposed, how exactly
the Mayor plans to incentivize companies to stay in the city, much less
locate here, remains a mystery
.
But how could anyone oppose the soda tax, since its objective is to
combat obesity? Oh wait, that was last year’s pitch, which was so
disingenuous that the proposal landed in the drink.

This time, the Mayor is taking a different tack, presciently pointing
out that no businesses — even the beverage retailers — will really be
harmed by the tax.

“These are individual business people who will make individual business decisions,” Nutter said.

Of course, the Mayor failed to explain how paying a mandated soda tax
— a certifiable job-killer — would be an “individual business
decision,” since failure to comply would unleash the city’s Gestapo Tax
Squad.

When asked if businesses would leave the city, he stated, “No, that’s
laughable. I mean, that’s just a cruel joke… they’re trying to scare
people with these tactics.”

Spoken like a career politician who has never held a private-sector
job in his life, and has absolutely no clue how devastating the soda tax
would be on the city’s businesses.

Here’s what the Mayor doesn’t want you to know: a soda tax, while a
burden to all, would be especially harmful to the poor, who can least
afford another tax. Remember, these people are already living in what
is, cumulatively, one of the highest-taxed cities in the nation.

More important, there’s no such thing as a “tax on soda.” It’s a tax on people. Period.

Which is why the Mayor is dancing the Philadelphia Two-Step, doing
everything in his power to distract the voters and avoid the real
issues.

Mayor Nutter incorrectly believes that government and “government
money” creates jobs and wealth, when in reality, the exact opposite is
true.

Government creates nothing, nor should it. Rather, it’s free people
in a competitive environment who are the engine of a thriving democratic
society. Government should be there to serve the people, not the
other way around. Nowhere is that more apparent than in once-great
cities like Philadelphia, where the economic lights are on their last
flicker.

Math doesn’t lie. Two plus two will always equal four — whether one
chooses to admit that or not. Out-of-touch politicians like Michael
Nutter can promise an empty bill of goods to our citizens. But just
because he chooses not to acknowledge the real problems doesn’t mean
they’re not there.

*****

The ball is now in City Council’s hands. They have the sole power to
approve or reject the Nutter tax proposals. While conventional wisdom
says the votes aren’t there for passage, nothing is certain, especially
with so many retiring Council members with “nothing to lose” if they
anger the voters.

Sure, the city is facing fiscal problems, but breaking the backs of
citizens to fix problems not of their making is simply wrong. Retiring
or not, what politician really wants his or her only legacy to be a
tax-raiser who presided over a violent, insolvent city with vastly
deteriorated city services?

It is rare that a City Council vote holds so much importance. In
this instance, the significance is not just whether a sugary drink tax
is passed or defeated, but the message behind that vote:

Will Philadelphia continue its decline by engaging in more of the same failed policies?

Or will it finally turn the corner, firmly stating that it will no
longer look to the state and federal governments for bailouts which only
serve to pass the buck on accountability? And that, instead, it will
pull itself up by its own bootstraps, embracing the spirit of its
citizens rather than crushing it?

*****

Here’s the truth. Residents are leaving Philadelphia in droves — some
to make purchases across county or state lines to avoid city taxes, and
hundreds of thousands who are just leaving altogether.

If Philadelphia is to ever put the brakes on this exodus, and begin
the long road back to respectability, it is mandatory for City Council
to step up and resoundingly reject the Mayor’s sugary drink tax
proposal.

Anything else will just be “sugar” coating a tragic situation — forcing residents to pour a drink much stronger than soda.

City Council, your 15 minutes are upon you.

Ban Sushi, The Time Has Come

This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his kind permission.

Sorry to disappoint, but the 2012 presidential election may prove to be anti-climatic, since it appears the federal government has solved all its problems, from illegal aliens to drug smuggling, from energy independence to protecting the environment. They must have even found a way to eliminate the $14 trillion debt.
Why? Well, based on all the resources the feds are putting into the eradication of a mammoth problem, one that strikes fear in the heart of all citizens, it would seem that all its other troubles have been solved. It’s an issue of such importance that pollsters surely find it at the top of every survey:
The production, sale and voluntary consumption of raw milk.
The threat is so great that armed federal officials find it necessary to routinely raid farms that produce that product. And rightly so, since the incidence of bovine malfeasance has obviously surpassed that of drug dealers, rapists, child predators, and murderers.
*****
The latest saga involved armed federal agents who, after months of “investigation,” raided an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, whose owner was allegedly selling raw milk across state lines. After assessing civil penalties, the government is now trying to shut down the farmer’s operation in federal court.
It’s another example of a government out of control, with gun-toting storm troopers swooping down on a farmer’s property. And there’s little doubt it came about because the extremely powerful dairy lobby once again flexed its political muscle, demanding that this increasingly popular practice be squashed. Given that there are over 10 million raw milk drinkers in the U.S., why else would so much attention be given to such an innocuous business?
At issue is whether raw milk is dangerous for human consumption because of the potential presence of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria, as opposed to the pasteurized milk that kills such germs and is common on store shelves. Raw milk advocates, both producers and consumers, claim that milk in its raw, natural form, free of chemical treatment, helps the human body maintain an overall level of healthiness. They state that during the pasteurization process, key proteins are destroyed that help promote digestion and improve the immune system.
Even though federal officials counter that the bacteria in raw milk can be deadly, people across the country go out of their way to obtain such milk, sometimes paying in excess of three times the price of regular milk. Not only have they lived to tell their story, but most claim they and their children are significantly healthier. In the past decade, only two deaths have been officially linked to raw milk, and even they were suspect, as the contaminated substance in question was Mexican cheese.
Given that raw milk is legal to sell in 29 states, and in the other 21 there are many legal loopholes to do so (such as labeling the milk for animal consumption, and selling “cow-shares” so that owners are entitled to a percentage of the cow’s yield as opposed to buying milk outright), such heavy handed conduct on the part of federal officials is troublesome.
*****
Here’s the rub. If government is going to interfere in people’s lives and threaten their livelihoods, then they should be consistent. It certainly wouldn’t make their decision right, but at least they would avoid the appearance of favoritism. If the major issue in the consumption of raw food is the possibility of it containing “harmful” bacteria, then many more businesses should be concerned about being shut down by government agents.
Fair is fair.
So why aren’t the feds closing all restaurants that serve sushi, or at least banning it from the menu? Sushi, a delicacy loved by millions, is simply raw fish. And the best sushi is categorized as being from the “highest grade” fish.
Sounds like class warfare in the pelagic community.
The reality is that the “highest grade” fish is still served raw and can contain both bacteria and parasites. As an added bonus, the concentration of mercury in many of these fish is quite high because of their status as apex predators, meaning that, since they are at the top of the food chain, they often have the highest concentration of mercury.
Isn’t mercury bad for us, too?
And what about the significant risk of contracting hepatitis from eating raw seafood? It is a very real possibility, even when eating in a five-star restaurant.
While we’re at it, let’s ban steak tartare (made with raw beef) from all restaurants, as well as Caesar dressing concocted with raw eggs.
Come to think of it, the citrus and vegetable industries have problems too, given the occasional presence of E. coli on those products, due in part to manure laden irrigation water and fertilizer.
So let’s ban tomatoes, too. Oh wait, the FDA did exactly that several years ago after announcing a salmonella outbreak, throwing countless Americans out of work. Only one problem. There was absolutely no evidence that tomatoes were the offending food, and, after completely decimating an entire industry, the FDA (Federal Destruction Administration) cavalierly announced that it didn’t actually know what caused the outbreak.
If only the FDA was red-faced and apologetic after its misstep, willing to make amends, some of the animosity towards government would have been mitigated. But it was as arrogant as ever.
The specter of bureaucrats who are 52 cards short of a deck yet hold the power to destroy Americans’ lives — with no repercussion when they are wrong — is simply un-American. And the fact that Congress and presidential administrations allow such intrusion to go unchecked simply makes the sin mortal.
*****
Government clearly has more important priorities than trying to put raw milk producers out of business, especially when it operates in such a frightening manner. If people want to drink raw milk for its perceived health benefits, they should be able to do so without fear, and without being forced to act like rumrunners during Prohibition. And if government is so concerned about the safety of these individuals, it could make them sign a waiver of liability.
Of course, then we would be sifting through pages of litigious material every time we entered a restaurant, which would just thrill the bureaucrats.
Or maybe our taxpayer-funded government could actually try to hold up its part of the bargain by enforcing the laws that are designed to keep us safe and secure, but are routinely ignored. Spending no more than it takes in and sealing the border are just two that come to mind.
A wise man once wrote that government should be “…of the people, by the people, for the people”.
Well-funded lobbies controlling an ever-intrusive government is not what Mr. Lincoln had in mind.

 

Ban Sushi, The Time Has Come