A reusable grocery bag
Photo Credit: LA TimesCome on Tony, you don’t have to out Nanny State Julia Brownley.
As a growing number of California cities and counties have adopted local ordinances banning the distribution of single-use plastic bags in the name of reducing litter and ocean pollution, Sen. Tony Strickland is concerned about a different threat at the grocery checkout line: reusable cloth bags.
Strickland, R-Moorpark, believes those bags are a threat to public health because of the possibility of cross-contamination of bacteria from produce and that from meats and poultry. He wants to see a label printed on every reusable bag sold in California that reads, “WARNING: Reusable bags must be cleaned and disinfected between uses to prevent food cross contamination. Failure to do so can cause serious illness resulting from food-borne pathogens.”
Strickland proposes that label in Senate Bill 1106, which would also require grocers to conspicuously display the same warning near where reusable bags are sold.
“The goal here is public safety,” he said. “Consumers have a right to know that if they don’t wash them they put their health at risk.”
But, your contention that there is a health hazard here is just plain stupid.
I know you are doing this to punish those communities like Los Angeles who ban plastic bags. But, the rest of California doesn’t need MORE NANNY STATE to tell us when to clean out our reusable bags.
Now, I have problems with banning plastic bags.
However, more government regulation to cure government overreach is NOT a solution.
You should know better.
Drop the bill.
Find another contrasting issue upon which to run for Congress and beat Julia Brownley.
Well, technically the legislation is still alive.
A proposed California law to tax sodas, sweet teas, sports drinks and other sugary beverages was shelved today by an Assembly committee.
Assembly Bill 669 was placed on hold in a file for bills with monetary implications. No vote was taken, so the bill technically remains alive, but the author’s office conceded that it is unlikely to advance.
Assemblyman Bill Monning, who crafted the measure, said the committee will not move AB 669 to the Assembly floor unless it can win a two-thirds majority vote there — and, so far, that is not the case. Republicans adamantly have opposed any new tax.
“I would acknowledge that it’s an uphill struggle,” said Monning, D-Carmel.
Monning crafted AB 669 to generate revenue for obesity prevention activities and programs.
The measure would slap sugar drinks distributed in California with an excise tax of one penny per fluid ounce.
There is NO WAY any Republicans in the California Legislature would ever vote for this POS law. And, remember that in California in order to raise taxes you need a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
But, it will remain alive to become a “JUICE BILL” for the California Democrats in order to raise money for their 2012 re-election campaigns. I can see those invites to campaign events goin gout to all of those large soda companies now.
Opponents claim that AB 669 could harm the beverage industry and that decisions about consumption of sugary drinks are a matter of individual responsibility and parental authority.
More nanny state taxes from California.
A study released Thursday estimates that a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary sodas and other sweetened drinks would return $233 per student to California classrooms and fund childhood obesity prevention initiatives.
“The science linking sugary drinks to the obesity epidemic is rock solid,” said study author Harold Goldstein, with the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who is a leading proponent behind the largely successful removal of junk food and sodas from school vending machines and cafeterias. “It’s time to make sure that the cost of these beverages includes the social cost of the harm they are doing.”
The study is based on AB 669 by Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Carmel, which would raise $1.7 billion statewide every year and send 85 percent of that to schools and local agencies and 15 percent to state-run anti-obesity programs.
At a penny an ounce, Californians would need to buy the equivalent of 14 billion 12-ounce cans of soda, an average of a little more than a can a day for every man, woman and child in the state.
And, get this quote: “Soda has become the new tobacco.”
I mean how stupid is this.
“Soda has become the new tobacco,” said Supervisor John Gioia, of Richmond. “It took us a while to get to the point where we linked the negative health implications of tobacco on public health, and we know that the taxes on cigarettes are working to reduce smoking.”
A soda tax — applied to all beverages with added sugar and fructose corn syrup — has been debated for years.
Don’t these fools understand that the economy cannot sustain any more taxes for their nanny state redistribution schemes? And, why should soda drinks redistribute the costs of their purchases to fund school obesity programs.
Damn, just kick the soda machines out of the schools.
And, what about personal responsibility?
It’s a bad idea, countered said Jon Coupal, with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Soda drinkers vastly outnumber smokers, a dwindling population whose ostracized members are accustomed to paying cigarette taxes, he said.
“It’s the stupidest thing to come down the pike,” Coupal said. “Why are we singling out this form of carbohydrate for taxation? What’s next? A bread tax? A pizza tax? At the end of the day, this effort is a combination of bad fiscal policy with nannyism in government.”
Classroom dollars and soda consumption have no ties, said Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Executive Director Kris Hunt.
“It’s another case of ballot-box budgeting that doesn’t make any sense,” Hunt said.
The only reassuring aspect of this tax is that the proponents will need a 2/3rds vote of the California Legislature, plus the Governor’s signature. I doubt any Republicans will vote for this proposal.
So, if the nanny state soda jerks want to tax us, they will have to gather signatures and qualify an initiative for the ballot. I doubt if California voters, in this economy, will be voting themselves any more taxes – obesity or not.
A Little Village Academy student cringes at an enchilada dish served at his school. Many students throw away their entrees uneaten and say they would rather bring food from home. The school, though, does not allow students to bring in their own lunches, unless they have a medical condition or a food allergyYes, it is all about healthful eating or is it the unions and school district that are enriching themselves?
Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.
“Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: “We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!”
Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: “Do you see the situation?”
At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.
Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”
Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.
A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.
“While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments,” Monique Bond wrote in an email. “In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom.”
Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.
At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.
“Some of the kids don’t like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast,” said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. “So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something.”
The nanny state is now telling Chicago public school students what to eat because?
Their parents don’t know what is nutritious enough for their own child? Are they too stupid? Or, is it because the school principal knows what’s best?
Looking at the enchilada above, my cynical self tells me it is more about how the public school lunch program is enriched with more meals being consumed than any student’s healthy food choices.
Am I wrong?
By the way, what is wrong with a PB and J sandwich?
As Chuck who is running for the United States Senate while an incumbent member of the California Legislature, rails about the NANNY STATE re: solid brass fittings for his house, it is EASY to point out that DeVore himself did the same with regards to pregnant women.
DeVore’s idea was to give pregnant and post-pregnant women some special so-called “handicapped” parking privileges. More specifically, a bill recently introduced by DeVore, AB 1940, would have defined women’s last trimester of pregnancy and the first two months after birth as a time of “temporary disability,” which would have entitled them to obtain handicapped placards and to park in most handicapped spots during that five-month period.
I mean for a so-called small government conservative as DeVore considers himself how stupid is this?
But, good ol’ Chuck is undeterred – at least on Twitter as he fires again.And, even writes a piece for the Andrew Breitbart’s blog, Big Government, about what?
Yeah, those damn brass plumbing fixtures for HIS house.
Last night was one of those nights when I was mad as hell at the California State government and their foolish, micro-managing, Big-Nanny ways. (Caution, dear reader, such rage at the machine has been known to cause the temporary insanity of running for public office.)
The cause of my extended rant? AB 1953, a law passed in 2006 that goes into effect on January 1, 2010, the purpose of which was to define lead-free plumbing from 4% in fixtures down to the European Union standard of 0.25%. Not that the science supported this change. Once lead was removed as a gasoline additive, taken out of paints, and removed from plumbing (the Latin word for plumbing is where we get the chemical symbol for lead: Pb), human lead exposure dropped significantly. Having a small percentage of lead bound up in a brass alloy plumbing fixture isnâ€™t going to add a statistically meaningful amount of lead exposure to anyone.
We’re pleased a Nanny State intrusion wisely was rejected Monday in a legislative committee vote that killed Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s plan to extend special parking privileges to pregnant women.
Mr. DeVore, R-Irvine, often has lambasted Nanny Staters for their know-it-all intrusions into peoples’ lives. But apparently he isn’t immune to the “fix-everyone’s-problem” syndrome. His bill would have extended temporary handicapped parking passes to pregnant women, despite the obvious fact pregnant women aren’t handicapped. This GOP version of Nanny Statism had the usual flaw we see when Big Brother “helps.” It’s entirely arbitrary.
Assembly Bill 1940 would have extended special privileges to 500,000 pregnant women a year in California, but not at once. It was only for the last three months of pregnancy. Why not the last four? Why not all nine? It was also for women for two more after giving birth. Why not four months? Why not a year? Why at all?
We like pregnant women. In fact, we’re indebted to them. But Mr. DeVore’s bill was just another intrusion into places the government should not go. When government doles out privileges, they are not only arbitrary, they instantly create a subclass dependent on government for continuing the special consideration denied to others. This is typical of Democratic politics, which divvies the population into interest groups, each relying on government to fund or protect its special privilege.
It sounds to me like Nanny state for ME but NOT for thee.
And, this guy is running for the United States Senate? Someone who becomes unhinged because of plumbing fixtures and then exposes his own hypocrisy?
Wow, just weird!