http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/business/worldbusiness/01middle.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
For Europe’s Middle-Class, Stagnant Wages Stunt Lifestyle
By CARTER DOUGHERTY and KATRIN BENNHOLD
New York Times
May 1, 2008
LES ULIS, France — When their local bakery in this town south of Paris raised the price of a baguette for the third time in six months, Anne-Laure Renard and Guy Talpot bought a bread maker. When gasoline became their biggest single expense, they sold one of their two cars.
Their combined annual income of 40,000 euros, about $62,500, lands Ms. Renard, a teacher, and Mr. Talpot, a postal worker, smack in the middle of France’s middle class. And over the last year, prices in France have risen four times as fast as their salaries.
At the end of every month, they blow past their bank account’s $900 overdraft limit, plunging themselves deeper into a spiral of greater resourcefulness and regret.
“In France, when you can’t afford a baguette anymore, you know you’re in trouble,” Ms. Renard said one recent evening in her kitchen, as her partner measured powdered milk for their 13-month-old son, Vincent. “The French Revolution started with bread riots.”
The European dream is under assault, as the wave of inflation sweeping the globe mixes with this continent’s long-stagnant wages. Families that once enjoyed Europe’s vaunted quality of life are pinching pennies to buy necessities, and cutting back on extras like movies and vacations abroad.
[THE EUROPEAN DREAM WAS AT BEST A FANTASY, AT WORST, AN OUTRIGHT LIE]
Potentially more disturbing — especially to the political and social order — are the millions across the continent grappling with the realization that they may have lives worse, not better, than their parents.
“I have this feeling that there is a wall in front of us,” said Axel Marceau, a 41-year-old schoolteacher living outside of Frankfurt. “We’re just not going to get any further.”
His concerns are well-founded. A study by the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin found that the broad middle of the German work force, defined as workers making from 70 to 150 percent of the median income, shrunk to 54 percent of the population last year, from 62 percent in 2000.
Mr. Marceau’s father had a teaching job that afforded the family upward mobility, from owning a home to fancy ski vacations. But today, Mr. Marceau said, a new class of bankers, executives and other high earners has taken over. “I feel like we’ve been in a slow process of losing to the people up top,” he said.
“No one thought during the 1980s that they could possibly belong to a group of people who slide down the social scale,” said Markus Grabka, an economist at the institute for economic research. “No one had existential angst of the sort you have today.”
To be sure, Europe’s middle class is still larger than the number of people at risk of falling into poverty — and, by many measures, more protected than the American middle class. But policy makers worry that could change as the European economy starts to feel the drag of an American slowdown and high inflation.
[OF COURSE, EUROPEANS BLAME THE AMERICANS FOR THEIR OWN POLICY FAILINGS]
“The problem,” said Julián Cubero, chief economist for Spain for BBVA, a leading Spanish bank, “is that if your salary rises more slowly than the cost of products you buy on a daily basis, you feel poorer every day.”
That simmering concern turned into anger last week in Britain. Striking teachers closed schools for the first time in two decades, protesting pay packages that did not keep pace with the soaring cost of living. Proposed raises were about 2.5 percent, while food has risen 7 percent and oil costs have surged 20 percent in Britain since this time last year.
The teachers’ rallying cry was just the latest to echo across the Continent.
German workers from several industries waged a series of strikes last month demanding a greater piece of the economic pie after years of being asked to make salary concessions — flexibility that, some economists argue, has helped a leaner, meaner Europe stave off recession so far.
In France, where purchasing power has replaced unemployment as Public Enemy No. 1, unions representing workers from teachers to factory workers have taken to the streets in protest.
This month, thousands of European workers converged on the capital of Slovenia, which currently holds the European Union’s rotating presidency.
[PERHAPS, THESE WORKERS SHOULD RELY LESS ON SO-CALLED UNION BENEFITS, AND CONCENTRATE MORE ON SELF-HELP. RELIANCE ON OTHERS BREEDS RENT-SEEKING AND LESS THAN OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE]
Quantifying the squeeze on Europe’s middle class is tricky; there is no universal definition of middle class, and national agencies differ on how they calculate purchasing power, making cross-border comparisons difficult.
Tallying inflation is simpler: Since 1999, prices have risen 22.5 percent in the 27 member states of the European Union, and 18.8 percent in the 15 countries that use the euro.
Much of the declining purchasing power of European workers can be traced to those numbers, and to policy decisions and economic developments over the last decade when globalization began to reshape Europe and the world.
[THESE ARE SEEDS OF ANTI-AMERICANISM - AMERICA IS BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE CAUSE OF GLOBALIZATION. IS EUROPE'S SOLUTION TO GLOBALIZATION THE NEGATIVE MALTHUSIAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IT IS NOW PROMOTING AT THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER MULTILATERAL FORA???]
In Germany, Europe’s largest economy, the decline in purchasing power began in 2000, when employers started wresting wage concessions from unions, or simply shifting jobs to Eastern Europe and China.
[CORRECTION, GERMANY AND ITALY STARTED INVESTING IN CHINESE FACTORIES DURING THE 1990'S, ESPECIALLY IN THE TEXTILE, CERAMICS, CASTING AND OTHER LABOR-INTENSIVE MANUFACTURING SECTORS.]
Inflation-adjusted incomes rose from 1 percent to 2 percent in the late 1990s, but more than one million Germans lost full-time jobs during and after a recession in 2000 and 2001.
Subsequently, workweeks got longer without extra pay, and from 2004 through 2007, inflation outpaced income increases for the average family.
In France, the 35-hour workweek kept average annual pay increases below 1 percent for nearly a decade, said Robert Rochefort, the director general of Credoc, an organization in Paris that researches living standards. But French hypermarkets — big-box supermarkets that dominate the retail market — kept prices high, he said.
Spain generated thousands of jobs by pumping up the housing market, but has undergone a joblessness jump since the turmoil in real estate markets while wages have been consumed by inflation.
“When I started working at 23, I earned almost the same wage that I earn now,” said María Salgado, a 37-year-old director of television documentaries living in Madrid. Fourteen years ago, her monthly salary of about 1,200 euros ($1,873), bankrolled a full social life.
No longer. “The well-to-do middle class has become the tight middle class,” she said. “I’m surprised we haven’t started a revolution.”
Instead, Ms. Salgado cut her fish purchases to once a week, switched to supermarket brands and away from health-food stores, and halved her visits to the psychotherapist. She spends some weekends with her children, Violeta, 9, and Juan, 4, at her ex-husband’s parents’ home in the countryside — a stressful arrangement, but one that enables her to avoid expensive weekends in Madrid.
“Violeta asked me, ‘Mama, are we poor?’ I said, ‘No, we’re not poor,’ ” Ms. Salgado recalled, laughing. “But the middle class used to live well. And if you have lived well, it’s hard to live so badly.”
Stagnant pay and soaring prices have hit Italy hardest. Recent statistics from the country’s main shopkeepers’ union showed consumer spending was down 1.1 percent in January from a year earlier, the biggest drop in three years. Leisure and recreation spending fell 5.5 percent.
Francesca Di Pietro, a secretary, and her partner, Gianluca Pompei, a project manager, are part of that trend. Since their son, Mario, was born nearly two years ago, they have spent little on entertainment.
“I’ve become anxious about unexpected expenses,” Ms. Di Pietro said. To stretch their monthly income of about 2,500 euros ($3,900), the couple has been getting hair cuts at the local beauty school, packing a lunch for work, buying secondhand clothes in market stalls and vacationing at campsites instead of hotels.
They have abandoned their dream of living in central Rome, from an outlying neighborhood.
“I look at people on the bus and they seem sad and beaten down,” said Ms. Di Pietro, referring to Italy’s malaise. “We’re 40 years old. We should be feeling more combative, but really all we feel is frustrated.”
Some European governments are promising relief, but their ability to curb inflation or raise pay is limited.
Italy’s warring political coalitions both ran in last month’s elections promising to lighten the financial burden of average Italians. Their proposals ranged from eliminating unpopular real estate taxes to subsidizing dental care.
In France, the administration of President Nicolas Sarkozy is, among other things, looking into charges of price gouging by food merchants.
German leaders are considering lower taxes. It may not be enough.
Frustrated unions are taking tougher stances in wage talks. Public sector employees, as well as workers in the steel and chemical industries, have recently won wage increases.
“The idea that ‘I will sacrifice to save my job’ is dying,” said Ralf Berchthold, a spokesman with Ver.di, the largest services union in Germany. “People are ready to fight now.”
Carter Dougherty reported from Frankfurt, and Katrin Bennhold from Paris. Victoria Burnett contributed reporting from Madrid, and Elisabetta Povoledo from Rome.
Showing posts with label looney Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label looney Britain. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Bumbling Brown Bears Brunt of British Taxpayer Revolt: Better Bag Bodacious, Bogus Green Taxes Before its Too Late!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/may/04/tax.economy
Brown to scrap tax rises in bid to calm voter fury
Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill
The Observer,
Guardian.co.uk
Sunday May 4 2008
Gordon Brown is poised to scrap a series of unpopular tax rises as part of sweeping changes to stave off a dangerous revolt over the rising cost of living which last week dealt Labour its worst electoral hammering in 40 years.
Today the Prime Minister will respond to a growing suburban uprising by signalling moves to help motorists and other consumers. His intervention comes amid a fresh assault over the 10p tax rate change, which backbenchers warn could destroy his premiership.
Frank Field, the renegade ex-minister who forced Brown into offering compensation for the abolition of the 10p rate, said dismal local election results had shown poor families did not trust the Prime Minister to deliver on what Field described as an 'Alice in Wonderland' scheme to give them their money back.
He spoke as Tory strategists vowed last night to make the 10p rate and the rising cost of living the heart of their campaign in the forthcoming by-election in Crewe and Nantwich, claiming tax was a 'huge issue' among working-class Labour voters in the seat left vacant by Gwyneth Dunwoody's death. It was announced late last night that her daughter, Tamsin Dunwoody, had been chosen as the Labour candidate for the contest on 22 May.
The question of the Prime Minister's leadership was also raised openly for the first time since the vote; Labour backbencher Graham Stringer said ministers were privately discussing whether there should be a challenge to Brown.
The Manchester Blackley MP told Sky News: 'I think Gordon is going to be the leader of the Labour party. There is no real tradition of regicide. But it would not be true to say that these conversations aren't going on between ministers and Labour backbenchers about whether there should be a challenge. There is a public display of loyalty and there is private despair.'
Brown is also expected today to highlight the role of the Competition Commission investigation into supermarkets in protecting families from high prices, promising that ministers will ensure stores do not keep prices artificially high.
Brown to scrap tax rises in bid to calm voter furyGaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill
The Observer,
Guardian.co.uk
Sunday May 4 2008
[This picture is a genuine Labour party poster from the 2005 Hodge Hill by-election)
Unelected chairperson of the Labour Party, Hazel Blears, has got into hot water recently by stereotyping immigrants and suggesting the public associated them with anti-social behaviour. This came only days after the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown said he wanted to see ‘British workers for the British jobs’. See Socialist Unity Blog at: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=528.]
Gordon Brown is poised to scrap a series of unpopular tax rises as part of sweeping changes to stave off a dangerous revolt over the rising cost of living which last week dealt Labour its worst electoral hammering in 40 years.
Today the Prime Minister will respond to a growing suburban uprising by signalling moves to help motorists and other consumers. His intervention comes amid a fresh assault over the 10p tax rate change, which backbenchers warn could destroy his premiership.
Frank Field, the renegade ex-minister who forced Brown into offering compensation for the abolition of the 10p rate, said dismal local election results had shown poor families did not trust the Prime Minister to deliver on what Field described as an 'Alice in Wonderland' scheme to give them their money back.He spoke as Tory strategists vowed last night to make the 10p rate and the rising cost of living the heart of their campaign in the forthcoming by-election in Crewe and Nantwich, claiming tax was a 'huge issue' among working-class Labour voters in the seat left vacant by Gwyneth Dunwoody's death. It was announced late last night that her daughter, Tamsin Dunwoody, had been chosen as the Labour candidate for the contest on 22 May.
The question of the Prime Minister's leadership was also raised openly for the first time since the vote; Labour backbencher Graham Stringer said ministers were privately discussing whether there should be a challenge to Brown.
The Manchester Blackley MP told Sky News: 'I think Gordon is going to be the leader of the Labour party. There is no real tradition of regicide. But it would not be true to say that these conversations aren't going on between ministers and Labour backbenchers about whether there should be a challenge. There is a public display of loyalty and there is private despair.'
Brown is also expected today to highlight the role of the Competition Commission investigation into supermarkets in protecting families from high prices, promising that ministers will ensure stores do not keep prices artificially high.
Ministers also want Brown to rethink green taxes - including motoring charges and proposed 'pay as you throw' schemes for household rubbish - and to sideline his passion for Africa and the climate to focus on domestic worries.
Internal polling in London found Ken Livingstone's green policies, such as new charges for gas-guzzling cars, alienated older voters, while the environment was at best a low priority for others, suggesting that, as families' budgets shrink, so does their willingness to pay to save the planet.
'My colleagues will say Labour has got to be brave on green issues, but the public are really feeling the pinch,' said one senior minister. Downing Street sources hinted last night that trials of household-rubbish taxes may never be widespread, adding that Brown was 'fairly sceptical' about the idea.
The moves will be welcomed by MPs clamouring for practical measures to relieve pressure on family budgets. But Brown will face a fresh attack from Field when the ex-welfare minister tables a Commons motion this week criticising the response to the 10p tax crisis and demanding detailed, specific compensation measures be published before the next vote on the bill in mid-June. He has warned that the issue must be clarified or Labour could lose Crewe.
A by-election defeat could precipitate a crisis. Brown faces a 'triple whammy' with the poll in May, followed by the vote on the finance bill in June and a vote on detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days. Defeat in all three could trigger a vote of no confidence, ending his leadership without the need for a contest.
Describing the issue as 'potentially immensely dangerous' for Brown, Field said: 'What I thought [Brown] was going to say was "we are going to use every muscle in our bodies to find ways of compensating you". Instead of that, we had a garbled statement in the Commons which nobody could understand. I just think the 10p issue is going to be a live rail.' Writing in The Observer today, he warns the issue must be clarified before the by-election, adding: 'Failure to act clearly and decisively will, I fear, lead to further electoral disasters.'
Friends said Field was furious that the compensation package did not match what he had been privately led to expect. However, sources close to Brown said ministers would publish specific proposals early if they could.
Also writing in The Observer, former Downing Street strategist Matthew Taylor admits Labour is in a 'deep hole' and calls on Brown to focus on a few specific promises while delegating issues like prisoners' pay or plastic bag bans to his cabinet. He admits: 'It might not work. Then again, maybe nothing will.' Despite this, an Observer survey of MPs with marginal seats in London found no appetite for a change of leader after Boris Johnson's surprise win in the mayoral election. Gareth Thomas, the International Development Minister, who is defending a 2,028 majority in Harrow West, said: 'Gordon's the man for the job. We can carry on under him and win the next election, but we have been given some tough messages [by voters].'
However, the former Labour leadership challenger Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham, said Labour had not yet 'calibrated the language' to show it understood people's vulnerability. 'We talk about challenges when people are really struggling. It looks as if we are not emotionally in tune with them,' he said. 'We are losing our traditional supporters.'
Wounding losses in May and June could provoke a no-confidence vote in short order. 'The end for Mrs Thatcher came very quickly: she never thought it was going to be over the issue that blew up,' said one veteran backbencher.
Ministers will spend the weekend discussing the implications of Johnson's victory. Hazel Blears, the Local Government Secretary, rang Johnson on Friday and promised a constructive working relationship, but the government is considering whether to impose greater scrutiny on a Johnson administration over critical issues such as the Crossrail project or the Olympics budget.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Gordon Brown Gives New Meaning To Marxist Central Planning in British Eco-Towns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7311548.stm
15mph speed limit for eco-towns
BBC News
March 24, 2008
15mph speed limit for eco-towns
BBC News
March 24, 2008
Vehicles driving on roads in planned eco-towns will have to stick to 15mph speed limits, it has emerged.The restriction is among proposals designed to minimise the environmental impact of the settlements.
Government sources say the new town centres are to be car-free, and the 15mph limit will be enforced on "key roads" leading into them.
Environmental protesters have criticised the scheme for focusing too narrowly on carbon emissions.
'Revolutionary living'
'Revolutionary living'
More than 50 bids to create the zero-carbon developments have been entered by companies.
Housing minister Caroline Flint will set out standards expected of them later this week and the announcement of the shortlist of 10 new towns is expected in the coming weeks.
Ms Flint said: "These developments will be exemplars for the rest of the world, not just the rest of the country. It's critical that we get it right - and I make no apology for setting the bar as high as possible.
[ARE THEY KIDDING? EXEMPLARS?? FIRST PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN, DECIDING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST TO EXERCISE, ERECTS STRICT REGULATORY 'GET-FIT' TOWNS. See(http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html ). NOW, GORDON BROWN, DECIDING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO BECOME ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE, ERECTS STRICT REGULATORY ECO-TOWNS!! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7266701.stm
("The towns are expected to have low and zero-carbon technologies, good public transport and extensive parkland"].
"We have a unique opportunity to deliver a programme which will genuinely revolutionise the way people live."
[THIS IS WHAT THE MARXISTS USED TO SAY WHILE THEY WERE PUTTING THE FINAL TOUCHES ON THEIR CENTRAL PLANNING PROGRAMS!]
Ms Flint has said she wants to see towns designed around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.
Protests
Environmental protesters say the plans do not give adequate consideration to other ecological issues, such as the impact building would have on wildlife.
Up to five eco-towns are expected to be built by 2016, and up to 10 by 2020.
They will have populations of around 5,000 to 20,000 and be linked to larger towns and cities.
There have been nationwide protests over the plans from residents who claim the schemes will put too much pressure on local services.
Opposition has been voiced in places such as Grovewood in south Derbyshire and Stoughton in Leicestershire.
Last month around 300 campaigners marched against plans for a 6,000-home development in Long Marston, near Stratford, Warwickshire.
Housing minister Caroline Flint will set out standards expected of them later this week and the announcement of the shortlist of 10 new towns is expected in the coming weeks.
Ms Flint said: "These developments will be exemplars for the rest of the world, not just the rest of the country. It's critical that we get it right - and I make no apology for setting the bar as high as possible.
[ARE THEY KIDDING? EXEMPLARS?? FIRST PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN, DECIDING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST TO EXERCISE, ERECTS STRICT REGULATORY 'GET-FIT' TOWNS. See(http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html ). NOW, GORDON BROWN, DECIDING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO BECOME ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE, ERECTS STRICT REGULATORY ECO-TOWNS!! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7266701.stm
("The towns are expected to have low and zero-carbon technologies, good public transport and extensive parkland"].
"We have a unique opportunity to deliver a programme which will genuinely revolutionise the way people live."
[THIS IS WHAT THE MARXISTS USED TO SAY WHILE THEY WERE PUTTING THE FINAL TOUCHES ON THEIR CENTRAL PLANNING PROGRAMS!]
Ms Flint has said she wants to see towns designed around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.
Protests
Environmental protesters say the plans do not give adequate consideration to other ecological issues, such as the impact building would have on wildlife.
Up to five eco-towns are expected to be built by 2016, and up to 10 by 2020.
They will have populations of around 5,000 to 20,000 and be linked to larger towns and cities.
There have been nationwide protests over the plans from residents who claim the schemes will put too much pressure on local services.
Opposition has been voiced in places such as Grovewood in south Derbyshire and Stoughton in Leicestershire.
Last month around 300 campaigners marched against plans for a 6,000-home development in Long Marston, near Stratford, Warwickshire.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Liberty vs. Socialism: Can't US Politicians See The European Welfare State Writing On the Wall??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/COMMENTARY/162106
Liberty vs. socialism
March 8, 2008
By Walter E. Williams
The Washington Times
- A fortnight ago, I wrote about Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282 that would have imposed fines or revoked licenses of food establishments that served obese people. Fortunately, the measure died in committee.
State Rep. Ted Mayhall, one of the bill's sponsors, said he wanted to bring attention to the fact that "Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program." His sentiments were expressed by quite a few readers who didn't necessarily support such a bill but opined that if a particular behavior or lifestyle imposes costs on others through tax-supported health care, government had a right to intercede.
Similar justification was used for laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists. After all, if one exercises his liberty to ride without a helmet and has an accident and becomes a vegetable, society must bear the expense of taking care of him. The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death?
You say, "Death. Aren't you exaggerating, Williams?" Say he tells the agents of Congress he will pay his share of constitutionally mandated government functions but refuses to pay the health costs of a sick obese person or a cyclist who becomes a vegetable, what do you think the likely course will be? First, he would be threatened with fines, imprisonment or property confiscation. Refusal to give in to these sanctions would ultimately lead to his being shot by agents of Congress.
Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.
There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise.
Would you support government-mandated exercise? You might argue that it's none of government's business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I would ask: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It's a measure to prevent schools from serving "junk foods" such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from "unhealthy" meals at school, would you want government to also protect them from unhealthy meals at home?
[SEE: Brown's 'Get Fit' Towns: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud - http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html By James Woudhuysen, Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort UniversitySpiked OnlineMonday 5 November 2007 -- Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.]
[SEE ALSO, In Looney Britain, Citizens Don't Even Have 'Property Rights' in Themselves!! , http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-looney-britain-citizens-dont-even.html . British PM Urges No-consent Organ HarvestingBy Patrick HennessyArticle published Jan 14, 2008 January 14, 2008 \LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LONDON —Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday threw his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to remove organs from dead patients without explicit consent.Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Brown said such a move would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year. The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of a national register or family members objected. But patients' groups said they are "totally opposed" to Mr. Brown's plan, arguing it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.]
When I was 14 or 15 years old, smelling myself, I thought I could take over the house. My mother told me that as long as she paid the bills, I would do what she said. That's great for a parent-child relationship, but do we want the same relationship between government and its citizens?
Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University.
[PROFESSOR WILLIAM'S ARTICLE WAS PROMPTED BY THE NEWS REPORTS THAT FOLLOW]:
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1dc81ea6-d115-46ac-9603-e362c0ebee64&rss=59
Bill Bans Obese Patrons From Mississippi Restaurants
Jackson, Miss. - The lawmakers who sponsored Bill No. 282 say they're not trying to discriminate against the overweight in Mississippi, they're trying to start a dialogue about how to fight the problem of obesity in the Magnolia State.
The proposed law would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve food to the obese.
Critics say government shouldn't try to be the food police and they say this latest attempt at public health legislation leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
"What kind of crap is that?" asks James Kelley of Clarksdale, Mississippi. "What do I think about it? Leave people alone. Let them eat what they want. Let them be."
Dedra Holley from Robinsonville, agrees. "How can you be serious?" she says. "So if they discriminate against obese people who are they going to discriminate against after that? People with long hair? Short hair? White people? Black people? I mean, that's absurd."
You'd be hardpressed to find any Mississippian who supports the idea. Even the man who sponsored the bill, Representative Ted Mayhall, says it should never pass.
"I do not have any intention of this becoming law," says the Desoto County Republican. "I don't think it has a Chinaman's chance. I'm against intrusive government. I don't think that's what we're here for and what we should be doing."
So why draft such controversial legislation?
"The reason I put the bill in," says Mayhall, "was to call attention to the seriousness of the obesity epidemic in Mississippi."
Mayhall says 30-percent of adults in Mississippi are obese. The state ranks number one in the nation for obesity three years running.
And with Mississippi's Medicaid program $168 million dollars in the red this year, Rep. Mayhall says illnesses related to obesity, including diabetes, are draining the state's budget.
His efforts to raise awareness about the issue have the national media calling with questions and constituents calling him out. By noon Friday, his answering machine was flooded with some not-so-nice messages and his cell phone was ringing constantly.
One caller told him, "Why don't you move to China or Russia instead of the U.S. Last I heard, this was still a free country."
There are plenty of skeptics who say Mayhall's plan to spark a change in the eating habits of Mississippians won't work.
"I don't think it's going to put a dent in the whole problem," says Dedra Holley. "I just can't believe it will."
"You're not going to be able to force someone to do something they're not ready to do," says James Kelley of Southaven. "Is this a Communist state?"
Despite the verbal attacks and all the doubters, Mayhall, a 68 year-old former pharmaceutical rep, says he's determined to stir up the debate.
"I'm a big boy," he says. "I can take anything that comes. I don't care. If it'll save three or four lives, it's well worth it."
Before Mayhall and Representatives John Read and Bobby Shows introduced their legislation, they got the green light from Mississippi's Public Health chairman and from Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
No one expects the bill to pass. They do expect a lively discussion in subcommittee about ways the state can solve its' obesity problems.
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/802030374
Some say obese bill has fat chance
Liberty vs. socialism
March 8, 2008
By Walter E. Williams
The Washington Times
- A fortnight ago, I wrote about Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282 that would have imposed fines or revoked licenses of food establishments that served obese people. Fortunately, the measure died in committee.
State Rep. Ted Mayhall, one of the bill's sponsors, said he wanted to bring attention to the fact that "Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program." His sentiments were expressed by quite a few readers who didn't necessarily support such a bill but opined that if a particular behavior or lifestyle imposes costs on others through tax-supported health care, government had a right to intercede.
Similar justification was used for laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists. After all, if one exercises his liberty to ride without a helmet and has an accident and becomes a vegetable, society must bear the expense of taking care of him. The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death?
You say, "Death. Aren't you exaggerating, Williams?" Say he tells the agents of Congress he will pay his share of constitutionally mandated government functions but refuses to pay the health costs of a sick obese person or a cyclist who becomes a vegetable, what do you think the likely course will be? First, he would be threatened with fines, imprisonment or property confiscation. Refusal to give in to these sanctions would ultimately lead to his being shot by agents of Congress.
Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.
There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise.
Would you support government-mandated exercise? You might argue that it's none of government's business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I would ask: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It's a measure to prevent schools from serving "junk foods" such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from "unhealthy" meals at school, would you want government to also protect them from unhealthy meals at home?
[SEE: Brown's 'Get Fit' Towns: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud - http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html By James Woudhuysen, Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort UniversitySpiked OnlineMonday 5 November 2007 -- Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.]
[SEE ALSO, In Looney Britain, Citizens Don't Even Have 'Property Rights' in Themselves!! , http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-looney-britain-citizens-dont-even.html . British PM Urges No-consent Organ HarvestingBy Patrick HennessyArticle published Jan 14, 2008 January 14, 2008 \LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LONDON —Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday threw his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to remove organs from dead patients without explicit consent.Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Brown said such a move would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year. The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of a national register or family members objected. But patients' groups said they are "totally opposed" to Mr. Brown's plan, arguing it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.]
When I was 14 or 15 years old, smelling myself, I thought I could take over the house. My mother told me that as long as she paid the bills, I would do what she said. That's great for a parent-child relationship, but do we want the same relationship between government and its citizens?
Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University.
[PROFESSOR WILLIAM'S ARTICLE WAS PROMPTED BY THE NEWS REPORTS THAT FOLLOW]:
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1dc81ea6-d115-46ac-9603-e362c0ebee64&rss=59
Bill Bans Obese Patrons From Mississippi Restaurants
Jackson, Miss. - The lawmakers who sponsored Bill No. 282 say they're not trying to discriminate against the overweight in Mississippi, they're trying to start a dialogue about how to fight the problem of obesity in the Magnolia State.
The proposed law would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve food to the obese.
Critics say government shouldn't try to be the food police and they say this latest attempt at public health legislation leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
"What kind of crap is that?" asks James Kelley of Clarksdale, Mississippi. "What do I think about it? Leave people alone. Let them eat what they want. Let them be."
Dedra Holley from Robinsonville, agrees. "How can you be serious?" she says. "So if they discriminate against obese people who are they going to discriminate against after that? People with long hair? Short hair? White people? Black people? I mean, that's absurd."
You'd be hardpressed to find any Mississippian who supports the idea. Even the man who sponsored the bill, Representative Ted Mayhall, says it should never pass.
"I do not have any intention of this becoming law," says the Desoto County Republican. "I don't think it has a Chinaman's chance. I'm against intrusive government. I don't think that's what we're here for and what we should be doing."
So why draft such controversial legislation?
"The reason I put the bill in," says Mayhall, "was to call attention to the seriousness of the obesity epidemic in Mississippi."
Mayhall says 30-percent of adults in Mississippi are obese. The state ranks number one in the nation for obesity three years running.
And with Mississippi's Medicaid program $168 million dollars in the red this year, Rep. Mayhall says illnesses related to obesity, including diabetes, are draining the state's budget.
His efforts to raise awareness about the issue have the national media calling with questions and constituents calling him out. By noon Friday, his answering machine was flooded with some not-so-nice messages and his cell phone was ringing constantly.
One caller told him, "Why don't you move to China or Russia instead of the U.S. Last I heard, this was still a free country."
There are plenty of skeptics who say Mayhall's plan to spark a change in the eating habits of Mississippians won't work.
"I don't think it's going to put a dent in the whole problem," says Dedra Holley. "I just can't believe it will."
"You're not going to be able to force someone to do something they're not ready to do," says James Kelley of Southaven. "Is this a Communist state?"
Despite the verbal attacks and all the doubters, Mayhall, a 68 year-old former pharmaceutical rep, says he's determined to stir up the debate.
"I'm a big boy," he says. "I can take anything that comes. I don't care. If it'll save three or four lives, it's well worth it."
Before Mayhall and Representatives John Read and Bobby Shows introduced their legislation, they got the green light from Mississippi's Public Health chairman and from Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
No one expects the bill to pass. They do expect a lively discussion in subcommittee about ways the state can solve its' obesity problems.
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/802030374
Some say obese bill has fat chance
By Natalie Chandler
February 3, 2008
A bill that would force some Mississippians to back away from the buffet, or any restaurant, has begun its trip through the 2008 Legislature.
House Bill 282 would prohibit restaurants from serving food to anyone who is obese, based on criteria from the state Department of Health.
Restaurateurs and an advocacy group say the legislation is a waste of time, and even one of the lawmakers pushing it doesn't expect it to travel very far.
State Rep. Ted Mayhall, R-Southaven, said he's simply hoping to "call attention to the problem."
"No one's doing anything about it," Mayhall said, referring to obesity. "They just keep on going to the buffets and eating."
Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program, he said.
A 2007 report put that state's obesity rate at 30.6 percent - the worst in the nation.
Mayhall said the bill has been referred to a House subcommittee. If it advances, it would be discussed in the House Public Health and Human Services Committee.
Dr. Ed Thompson, state health officer, has previously said Mississippi's obesity rate cost Medicaid alone $221 million each year.
On Saturday, Thompson said the Department of Health is monitoring the bill as it does all proposed legislation that could affect public health policies. However, Thompson said the department has "no position on the bill."
"The bill was not discussed with us but we will work with the sponsors to see if we can answer any questions along the way," he said.
The legislation would require the Department of Health to "prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments."
The department would be responsible for making sure restaurants follow the law, which would go into effect July 1. Permits could be revoked for failing to comply.
"I've seen a lot of crazy laws, but this one takes the cake. Literally," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom. "Whether it is menu labeling laws, taxes on fattening foods, or Mississippi's new "you're too fat to eat here" proposal, the food police have gone too far."
Mississippi also ranks "dead last" in the country for physical activity, Wilson said.
"Maybe the state's Legislature should do something to help people burn more calories instead of pretending that eating out is a cardinal sin," he said.
McDonald's restaurant owner Mike Rutzer of Greenville agreed.
"It just staggers the imagination to think what our government will come up with next," he said. "It's discriminatory. Now we're picking and choosing who to serve?"
Jackson restaurateur LeRoy Walker said lawmakers should focus on "health care, education, overall economic reform for our state. People on the Coast are still impacted from Hurricane Katrina."
"I think the individual who may have some challenges with their weight needs to govern themselves accordingly with the choices they put on their plates," he added.
DeShawn Walker, who was eating an early dinner with his mother Saturday evening at Big Mama's Country Cooking Buffet in south Jackson, said the bill equals discrimination.
"It's wrong," he said. "And I think it would make restaurants lose money, too."
Walker's mother, Patricia, shook her head at the bill's premise.
"You can't tell nobody how to eat. People have got to decide for themselves to lose weight," she said. "But, you know, some people are big and happy."
David Simmons of Ridgeland had similar feelings toward the proposed legislation.
"(Obesity) is a problem, I know. But it shouldn't be the government's role to dictate what people are eating, just like government shouldn't dictate smoking or drinking," he said.
Mayhall acknowledges the bill is "bad legislation" and that it "won't go anywhere."
But he said, "The intent was to get it in committee and call attention to the problem."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
