Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I get it now. CA is run by idiots.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I get it now. CA is run by idiots.

    Now I fully understand why so many of you non-CA types are just to eager to rip on CA.

    The Mayor of SF who is making a big for Governor runs a city that recently outlawed cigarette sales in drug stores, and now wants to tax soda.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

    Newsom wants to charge stores that sell sodas

    (09-17) 20:36 PDT -- Calling soda the new tobacco, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will introduce legislation this fall that would charge a fee to retailers that sell sugary beverages.

    Newsom would need voter approval to tax individual cans of soda and sugary juice, but only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. His legislation would charge grocery stores like Safeway and big-box stores, but would not affect restaurants that serve sodas.

    Newsom wouldn't say how much the stores would have to pay or how the city would spend the fees. When he first floated the idea in 2007, he said the money would go to his Shape Up San Francisco exercise program and for media campaigns to discourage soda drinking.

    The mayor said the city attorney's office has warned him the city would probably be sued over the matter, but he said it is worth the risk to try to curb a leading cause of obesity and diabetes.

    "We know we'll be sued," he said. "But I really believe this is important to do."

    Newsom said he was particularly motivated to move forward with the legislation by Thursday's release of a UCLA study showing a link between soda and obesity in California. Researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don't - and that soda consumption is fueling the state's $41 billion annual obesity problem.

    The study also found that 41 percent of children and 62 percent of teens drink at least one soda daily.

    "Soda is cheap, sweet and irresistibly marketed to teens," said Susan Babey, the study's lead author. "Not enough teens know about the health and dietary risks of drinking huge quantities of what is essentially liquid sugar." San Francisco would be the first city in the country to levy a fee on soda if, as expected, it is approved by the board. A handful of states, including Arkansas and Missouri, tax sodas, and California has considered the idea in the past. A soda tax has also come up in the national debate about health care reform as one way to help pay to insure more people.

    Industry's fight
    The American Beverage Association has consistently fought attempts to implement soda taxes, and on Thursday released a statement combatting UCLA's study.

    It read in part, "If our goal is to address obesity, then educating consumers about the importance of balancing calories consumed from all foods and beverages with the calories expended through physical activity is what matters - not demonizing any one particular food."

    Health legislation
    In San Francisco, a soda tax would be just the most recent example of a long line of legislation intended to improve residents' health - a pattern some residents have complained smacks of a nanny state.

    In recent years, city officials have banned the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies, added a fee to packs of cigarettes, required chain restaurants to display calories and fat content on menus, and created a program to recognize restaurants that don't serve trans fats.

    Jim Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the group opposes the soda tax.

    "Does this mean there's a fee on candy bars, on ice cream, on potato chips?" he asked. "Where do you draw the line?"

    He added that a small fee - likely to be passed on from the retailer to the consumer - wouldn't be enough to dramatically change people's habits, leading him to believe it's meant to be just another revenue source for the city.

    Mitch Katz, director of the city's Department of Public Health, said a study conducted over the past nine months shows a clear link between soda consumption and an increased burden on the public health system. He did not have a total dollar figure.

    Just a first step
    He said he considers a soda fee an incremental step, and that other sugary foods could someday have a surcharge as well.

    "It makes sense for the government to help people to make the right choices, and it makes sense to use dollars from charges on sweetened beverages on health programs," he said.

    Soda and obesity
    A new UCLA study examined sugary drinks and their effect on state spending and consumers' health.

    $41 billion Amount spent treating obesity in California each year.

    41 percent Kids ages 2-11 who drink at least one soda every day.

    62 percent Adolescents 12-17 who drink at least one soda every day.

    39 pounds Amount of sugar consumed over one year if you drink one soda a day.

    17 teaspoons Amount of sugar in a 20-ounce serving of soda.

    278 calories Increased number Americans consume each day compared with 30 years ago.

    43 percent Share of new calories attributable to soda.

    Source: "Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California" by UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy

    E-mail Heather Knight at [email protected].
    _____________
    "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
    - Cornelius Tacitus

  • #2
    You are just now figuring out that this state is infested with 'people for a perfect world' nanny state idiots?.......
    The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

    "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

    "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LA DEP View Post
      You are just now figuring out that this state is infested with 'people for a perfect world' nanny state idiots?.......
      yea, and I'm a 37 year old native

      I worked in SF for 8 years. Those people are really out to lunch. I just thought that one was pretty entertaining. I'm hoping his actions nix his Gov. chances. Or maybe I need to be scared that they might not.
      _____________
      "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
      - Cornelius Tacitus

      Comment


      • #4
        Most of the knuckleheads we have running this state (into the ground) are the type that are not happy unless they are meddling in as many lives as possible.....they are control freaks to the nth degree.......

        Yet another reason why I am outta this cesspool the day after retirement.
        The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

        "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

        "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

        Comment


        • #5
          Apparently SFO didn't want to be out done by the mayor.

          One can buy "carbon credits" to counter the impact they have when they fly. Wouldn't taking a sail boat or walking have more of an impact (an ACTUAL impact)?

          http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNO719OQN8.DTL

          (09-17) 18:22 PDT -- Travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport can be the first in the nation to wipe away some of the damage their flights wreak on the planet by swiping their credit cards.

          On Thursday, the Bay Area's largest airport unveiled three Climate Passport kiosks with touch screens that determine how many pounds of carbon dioxide a trip will produce, calculate the sum an environmentally conscious traveler should contribute to projects in San Francisco and California that help reduce greenhouse gases, then allow fliers to purchase certified carbon offsets.

          "We realize people are going to fly," said Steve McDougal, executive vice president of 3Degrees, a San Francisco company that helped SFO develop the program. "This gives them something they can do to reduce their impact. This is just one of many small things people need to do."

          The kiosks are located near the entrances to Terminal 3 and international terminals A and G - behind security checkpoints and perched in front of large signs reading, "Keep our skies blue. Purchase your air travel carbon offset here."

          Setting up the Climate Passport program cost $190,000 in airport funds, said Kandace Bender, deputy airport director.

          Judging from the reaction of the first two travelers to take a test spin of the touch screens, it's not clear whether the program will fly.

          Soon after a press conference to unveil the kiosk in Terminal 3 concluded, Shane Johnson, 39, a traveling salesman from Vancouver, B.C., strolled up to take a look.

          "What is it?" he asked.

          Johnson punched in his starting airport and his destination - Vancouver to SFO and back - entered the number of passengers in his party - one - and hit the "add flight" button and the "calculate my flights" button.

          His round trip would produce 1,186 pounds of carbon dioxide, which could be offset with a contribution of $7.26, the computer said. Johnson chose not to tap the "purchase now" button and slide his credit card into the kiosk.

          "I don't live here, so I prefer to make my donations at home," he said.

          A few minutes later, Bostonian Ari Peskoe, catching a flight home after a job interview, stopped by the machine and became the first person to purchase a carbon offset at SFO.

          "My flight was free, so I thought buying some greenhouse gas reduction was the least I could do," he said.

          His one-way trip home, the computer concluded, would produce 1,999 pounds of carbon dioxide, which could be offset for $12.24.

          Despite his purchase, Peskoe said he's a bit skeptical about the concept of carbon offsets. Some critics question whether some of the programs that receive money are effective in reducing carbon dioxide.

          McDougal said he understands such doubts, but that the projects funded by SFO fliers have been approved by an independent third party.

          Climate Passport contributions fund the Garcia River Forest, a reforestation project in Mendocino County where redwood and Douglas fir trees are being added to a forest that had been heavily logged. They also go to the SFCarbon Fund, which is steering the money to Dogpatch Biofuels, a bio-diesel fueling station in southeastern San Francisco.

          E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at [email protected].
          _____________
          "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

          "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
          - Cornelius Tacitus

          Comment


          • #6
            carbon credits are the 21st century version of the snake oil salesmen......same as the emails from Zimbabwe.......

            Now pardon me while I go run over some Spotted Owls in my SUV.......
            The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

            "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

            "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

            Comment


            • #7
              I laughed at the "Carbon Credits" article. If our economy is supposedly in such a bad state, do they really think the majority of airline passengers are going to cough up even more money on top of their already absurdely priced flights? I think the idea is rediculous, although I'm surprised no one thought of it sooner.

              Comment


              • #8
                Al Gore and the Democrats need carbon credits as a source for income. Providing them with excessive cuts from tax revenue is much too obvious. Get with it!!!
                "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                Comment


                • #9
                  And he's wanting to be the next governor.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I really like Newsome! He definately has my vote for governor....anything has to be better than Arnold!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by LAschoolCop View Post
                      I really like Newsome! He definately has my vote for governor....anything has to be better than Arnold!
                      You may want to be careful what you wish for. As Governor, it is reasonable to expect him to apply his policies on the rest of the state which of course includes LA.

                      By the way, I've heard that LA is a "sanctuary city" like SF. Tell me, how's that working out for you guys?
                      Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                      America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JPR View Post
                        You may want to be careful what you wish for. As Governor, it is reasonable to expect him to apply his policies on the rest of the state which of course includes LA.

                        By the way, I've heard that LA is a "sanctuary city" like SF. Tell me, how's that working out for you guys?
                        I like his policies for the most part. Sanctuary city? Can you eloborate more?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by LAschoolCop View Post
                          I like his policies for the most part. Sanctuary city? Can you eloborate more?
                          Means illegals are more than welcome to come on in, circumvent immigration laws, and drain local revenues. MS-13 types luv em.
                          sigpic
                          Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun.
                          And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LAschoolCop View Post
                            I like his policies for the most part. Sanctuary city? Can you eloborate more?
                            From Mr. Newsome's own mouth:

                            Originally posted by http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=78378
                            4/2/08 - Today, joined by community groups, faith leaders, and City department heads, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Tom Ammiano launched a public awareness campaign to promote San Francisco’s "sanctuary" policy for undocumented residents, and assure all residents that accessing city services does not make an individual vulnerable to federal immigration authorities.

                            "The City's public awareness campaign is a reminder that City employees will not report individuals or their immigration status to federal immigration agents," said Mayor Newsom. "San Francisco residents should feel safe when they visit a public health clinic, enroll their children in school, report a crime to the Police Department or seek out other City services."
                            Originally posted by kontemplerande
                            Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This is an article from the SF Gate (not exactly a bastion of conservative thought) about Newsoms' policy, and how it may have cost the lives of a couple of his residents

                              Article:San Francisco: Sanctuary City Gone Awry
                              Cinnamon Stillwell

                              Wednesday, July 16, 2008



                              San Francisco's political establishment has long prided itself on providing a haven for illegal immigrants. Mayor Gavin Newsom even launched a taxpayer-funded $83,000 "public awareness campaign" earlier this year assuring illegal immigrants that the "sanctuary city" by the bay was in their court.

                              And indeed it is. Under the city's 1989 voter-approved sanctuary ordinance, police officers and other city employees are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status. In addition, the city will not direct municipal funds or employees towards assisting federal immigration enforcement, unless such assistance is required by federal or state law or a warrant.

                              No doubt such protections warm the heart of the city's liberal leadership. But San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city is having unintended consequences.

                              The brutal and senseless murder last month of Tony Bologna and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, at the hands of Edwin Ramos, a native of El Salvador and known member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, was a reminder that inviting illegal activity can turn deadly. The Bolognas were on their way back from a family picnic when they inadvertently blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn in the Excelsior district. When Bologna politely backed up to let the other car past, Ramos responded by opening fire and killing all three passengers. Ramos has been charged with three counts of murder, with the added penalty of street-gang involvement.

                              So far, much of the outcry surrounding the case has centered on San Francisco district attorney Kamala Harris' policy of not seeking the death penalty, in this case, against the wishes of widow, Danielle Bologna. But in the process, Ramos' immigration status has largely been overlooked. Ramos' original lawyer, Joseph O'Sullivan, claimed that his client was in the country legally and applying for permanent residence, but federal immigration authorities insist otherwise and promise to deport Ramos if he is convicted. O'Sullivan has since asked to be removed from the case, claiming a connection via a previous client. Thus, he has never had to explain his assertions regarding Ramos' immigration status.

                              This certainly wasn't Ramos' first brush with the law. He was booked both on felony weapons charges and for being a member of a criminal street gang earlier this year, but escaped prosecution for lack of evidence. However, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Police Department "cited 'numerous documented contacts' that officers had with Ramos and [his companion] Lopez, and said both were active members of the MS-13 street gang.'" But thanks to San Francisco's sanctuary city status, instead of being reported to federal immigration authorities and deported, Ramos was allowed continue to roam the streets of San Francisco until his arrest for the Bologna killings.

                              San Francisco's sanctuary policy has also taken a statewide toll. While adult illegal immigrant felons are not protected by the ordinance, no such stipulation exists for juvenile offenders, and city officials have used that loophole to dump the problem onto other counties. Earlier this month, San Bernardino County officials threatened to sue the city of San Francisco for sending a group of Honduran, illegal immigrant, juvenile crack dealers to group homes in the city of Yucaipa without notification. Eight of them simply walked away from the unsecured group homes and only one has been recaptured. Officials later acknowledged that this wasn't the first time San Francisco had unloaded criminal illegal immigrants onto San Bernardino County. In fact, Yucaipa has seen a rise in violent crime in accordance with the influx of foreign offenders to its group homes in recent years.

                              This time around, the outcry from San Bernardino officials caused Mayor Newsom to alter the city's approach to juvenile offenders. No doubt, Newsom's interest in running for governor of California, which he announced just before the controversy erupted, influenced his decision. While Newsom may find a sympathetic audience in San Francisco to his former commitment to sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants, it could prove a liability on the statewide level.

                              Even on a local level, there's some indication that people are getting fed up with the city's insistence on emphasizing ideology over public safety. In a local CBS poll, 79 percent of respondents agreed that San Francisco should "turn over convicted illegal immigrants for deportation."

                              Monetary concerns are another factor. It doesn't help that Mayor Newsom and other officials bemoan the city's $338 million budget deficit, even as funds continue to pour into sustaining San Francisco's sanctuary city policies. San Francisco has spent millions of dollars housing juvenile, illegal immigrant offenders and hundreds of thousands of dollars flying them back to their countries of origin in recent years, instead of turning them over to federal immigration authorities as federal law requires. In the wake of the furor over the Honduran case and federal authorities' demand that San Francisco end the flights, the city started housing some of the dealers in youth rehabilitation centers, costing taxpayers $7,000 per month, per person.

                              Then there's San Francisco Supervisor and State Assembly candidate Tom Ammiano's brilliant plan to provide municipal identification cards to those who either cannot or will not obtain a state-issued driver's license – or in other words, illegal immigrants. Set to go into effect next month, the ID program could cost up to $2.86 million in the first three years, according to a County Clerk estimate. As it turns out, Newsom's aforementioned $83,000 taxpayer-funded love letter to illegal immigrants was just the icing on the cake.

                              Supporters of San Francisco's sanctuary city policies, which include members of the local faith community who inspired the original ordinance, argue that the current approach is the only humane solution. In its 2007 pledge, the New Sanctuary Movement, describing immigration raids, stated that "We cannot in good conscience ignore such suffering and injustice." But where is the compassion for the injustice inflicted upon American citizens? Others argue that juvenile illegal immigrants deserve special treatment because they are minors. But this ignores the fact that criminal illegal immigrants and the drug cartels for whom some of them work, are aware of San Francisco's former sanctuary loophole and have taken to falsely claiming juvenile status as a result. Still, others argue that police departments need to work with illegal immigrants in the community in order to effectively tackle crime and that fears of deportation get in the way. But extending the current, chaotic state of affairs will only lead to further crime and misery, even for those within such communities.

                              While San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance may have been well-intentioned, it has resulted in an untenable and anarchic situation that is taking its toll on city residents and surrounding counties alike. Providing sanctuary for law-breakers at the expense of law-abiding citizens is neither a compassionate nor a moral approach. The issue is not one of callousness towards illegal immigrants, but rather, the duty owed American citizens by their government. In some respects, every layer of the government has failed this test, but in this case, it's the local government that is absconding on its duties. And all San Francisco officials can seem to offer up is more of the same.

                              They don't call it the Wild West for nothing.

                              Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at [email protected]. She also writes for the blog at campus-watch.org.
                              The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

                              "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

                              "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3297 users online. 147 members and 3150 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X