Two Massachusetts Mayors Way Out of Line

Another story of government officials going too far has popped up in liberal Massachusetts. This time, two mayors want to ban Lazy Cakes Brownies. The brownies are made with a non-medicinal, non-narcotic, herbal dietary supplement that helps people relax and even helps them fall asleep.

In Fall River, Massachusetts, Mayor William A. Flanagan has called the brownies "despicable" and wants them banned. Meanwhile, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Mayor Scott W. Lang wants the brownies banned from town. The two Mayors cite critics who say that the product appeals to children.

What we have here is another situation of the government going too far. Lazy Cake Brownies, on their box and on the product website, state that the product is for adults. While it might make sense to ban the product from sale to minors, like tobacco, alcohol, and pornography, it is absurd to ban it from an entire city or town.

Adults should be free to purchase the products they want to buy. What the two foolish Massachusetts mayors have done is simply given more attention to Lazy Cakes Brownies, which will likely lead to more sales for the manufacturer. (Case in point, had they not made the absurd decision to try to ban the product, The Report would not have written a piece mentioning the product. Our piece will be read by hundreds of readers, many of which may have never heard of the product before and might become curious and decide to buy a box of Lazy Cakes Brownies for themselves.)

New Laws Aren't the Answer

The St. Petersburg Times reports on a movement to restrict alcohol consumption on Sunset Beach in Florida. An ordinance there would ban drinking alcohol between 8:00 AM and sunset on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays, and those in favor of it argue that crowds drinking or partying get rowdy.

Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a case of government gone too far in restricting the people's freedom by attempting to pass unnecessary ordinances or laws. The problem that Sunset Beach faces is not alcohol, but rather rowdy people. Existing laws against causing public disturbances or nuisances simply need to be enforced. Passing a law that will prevent someone from having a beer on the beach isn't the right answer, and is a continued migration towards making the United States a nanny state instead of a nation based on freedom.

Banned in Boston

In the early 20th century, the term "Banned in Boston" was applied to works that were prohibited from being sold, performed, acted, etc. in Boston, Massachusetts due to unconstitutional censorship and abuse in the city. Today, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, a liberal Democrat has brought the banning back to Boston with a plan to ban beverages from city property. We're not talking about banning people from drinking liquor on the job, rather the ban is on the sale of "non-diet sodas, pre-sweetened ice teas, refrigerated coffee drinks, energy drinks, juice drinks with added sugar, and sports drinks." The Mayor has moved forward on this ban with the issuing of an executive order, meaning there was no democratic process or ability for the people of Boston to object.

What Mayor Menino is doing is blatantly attacking the right of the American people to make their own choices and decisions. While it is known that eating/drinking excessive amounts of sugar, whether in beverages or elsewhere, can lead to taking in more calories than recommended which can lead to weight gain or even obesity in the long-run, the choice on what to eat or drink should be left to individual Americans.

Drinking sports drinks or a soda in moderation doesn't lead to obesity. At a gym, you'll see many people who drink a sports drink while exercising. Some of them are obese, trying to get in shape, but many are not. Likewise, many who drink refrigerated coffee drinks, energy drinks, or non-diet soda aren't obese. Some are, but that's because of their own personal choices and bad decisions, not because the government allowed the sale of food and beverage with sugar in it.

Canned and bottled beverages contain nutritional data, including the amount of sugar/carbohydrates and calories on the bottle. Many even prominently feature this information on the front as a result of a movement by the beverage industry to make it easier for Americans to make their own decisions on what beverages to buy or drink. Unfortunately, the Mayor of Boston thinks that he should be able to decide what Bostonians can drink instead of allowing individuals the freedom to make their own decisions.

If you want to let Mayor Thomas M. Menino know that Americans are smart enough to make their own decisions, you can contact the Mayor's Office:

Mail: Mayor of Boston / 1 City Hall Square, Suite 500 / Boston, MA 02201-2013
Phone: 617.635.4500
Fax: 617.635.2851
E-Mail: mayor@cityofboston.gov

Dodd-Frank Bad for Consumers

One of the consequences of Congress passing the Dodd-Frank "reform" bill is that consumers are now finding themselves losing out as banks cut debit card rewards programs, increase consumer fees, can no longer serve young adults independently, and now are forced to tell people that their credit and debit cards can be declined by merchants who don't want to accept them for small purchases. Dodd-Frank was positioned as a way to curb so-called "abuse" by banks, but in reality it limits the free market and hurts consumers. 

Congress made mistakes, and they need to act to repeal these parts of Dodd-Frank. Here's why:

• With the interchange rate caps, banks are moving to eliminate rewards programs and incentives on debit cards, and to a lesser extend credit cards. Consumers in the past could get rewards points or cash back when using their debit cards. Now, many debit cards are eliminating the rewards offerings and some credit cards are reducing their programs as well. The result of this is that consumers lose out. The way that the free-market system worked is that debit and credit card processing firms set rates for debit card acceptance, and merchants who decided they wanted to accept the cards would find the processor that suited their needs and charged a price they were willing to pay. Some merchants decided they didn't want to pay, and thus decided to remain cash-free despite data that shows businesses that accept more forms of payment are actually more profitable.

• Since Dodd-Frank will curb the amount that banks can charge merchants for credit and debit card transactions, banks are now considering adding more fees to consumers to make up for the lost revenue. Imagine if you had to pay 50 cents every time you used a debit or credit card to your bank? That could add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars in a year. Some consumers would be forced to carry cash, increasing the opportunity for criminals to take advantage of them and losing out on consumer protections.

• Dodd-Frank limits access to credit for people age 18-21. As a result, these adults, who are of sufficient age to serve the country in combat in a place like Afghanistan, are unable to obtain credit cards or loans on their own. This reduces their ability to build a strong credit profile while in college or when starting out on their own. Additionally, it places an undue burden on young adults. Booking airline tickets, checking into a hotel, or renting a car is much more difficult or inconvenient when you don't have a credit card, for example. 

• One of the worst parts of Dodd-Frank is that it overrode the "no minimum" policies of Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. In the past, consumers knew their valid credit and debit cards had to be accepted by merchants whether it was a $0.49, $4.90, or $490 purchase. Now, merchants can set a minimum of as high as $10 to use a credit or debit card. This limits consumer choice in payment, and can force people to carry more cash making themselves a target for criminals.

All of the above make it more difficult for consumers to shop, and as a result consumers end up spending less leading to a negative impact on the economy. There are some ways that the American people can fight back against these portions of Dodd-Frank that hurt consumers:

• Switch to banks that continue to provide rewards programs and do not charge absurd fees. Unfortunately, many banks in order to remain competitive are going to "follow the leader," giving consumers fewer options. 

• Contact members of Congress and encourage them to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank that hurt consumers. Send letters, e-mails, tweets, and if you see your Congressperson talk to them.

• Boycot any merchant that imposes a minimum sale. Additionally, if you encounter a minimum sale amount that was not disclosed to you, such as if a bar tells you you have to buy more drinks to close a tab, refuse to do it. Do not sign the receipt, and if you are charged more than what you actually bought then report this is fraud to your credit or debit card issuer. If the place holds onto your credit or debit card, report it as stolen so your bank can close it and issue a new one.

Dodd-Frank is a prime example of how government regulation and interference run amuck hurts the American people. We can only hope that parts of it are repealed. 

The War On Obesity

First Lady Michelle Obama's efforts to reduce obesity in America have come under fire by many. While a good initiative for the purposes of national security and health, the problem is that the efforts have become connected to left-wing ideas such as taxing foods with high fat or sugar content or restricting access to certain foods. Further, Ms. Obama's proclamation that the American people don't have a right to eat desert didn't help her cause as it presented a position that the government wanted to take control of what you could and could not eat.

The best way to fight "the war on obesity" is not through greater government intervention in the average American's life or new taxes. Rather, the government should incentivize healthy eating through tax breaks. There are two ways to do this:

Method #1: Allow Americans to deduct the cost of all food they purchase within certain dietary guidelines from their taxes each year. No cap on the deduction or income level should phase the deduction out. In practice, this means if a family spends $9,000 a year on food, with $500 spent on "unhealthy" food that don't meet the guidelines, they would be able to deduct $8,500 from their taxes. It would provide an incentive to eat healthy.

Method #2: Similar to a healthcare flexible spending account (FSA), a food savings account should be available for Americans to set aside pre-tax income for food purchases. As with the tax deduction idea, only food items meeting certain dietary guidelines would be eligible for the account, providing an incentive to purchase healthy food.

If the government incentives eating healthy with tax breaks, the result will be that food suppliers will make changes to create healthier food options as customers will demand items that are eligible for the tax deduction or to be purchased out of their food savings account. The government should additionally allow a deduction or a tax credit for the cost of gym membership or exercise equipment made in the United States. This will spur an uptick in purchasing, which will help businesses that make or sell exercise equipment. The result will be that the government, without invasive intervention into the lives of Americans or expensive programs like Obamacare, can encourage healthier eating and reduce obesity while also helping the economy.

Barack Hussein Obama - Not Approved

A majority of Americans do not approve of Barack Hussein Obama's performance as President of the United States. Recently, four different polls confirm that President Obama has an approval rating below 50%:

• Gallup - 48%
  
• Rasmussen Reports - 46%
  
• Quinnipiac University - 48%
  
• Marist College - 48%
  

Interestingly, the American people support repealing the job killing, tax hiking health care reform legislation more than they do President Obama. 55% of Americans support Obamacare repeal. President Obama, however, defies the American people and has insisted that he will veto a repeal if it ever reaches his desk. Additionally, Senate Democrats have vowed to disallow a straight yea/nea vote on the matter in the Senate should it pass the House of Representatives, which is taking up the issue tomorrow and will vote on Wednesday. Several Democrats are expected to back the Republican-led Obamacare repeal effort, coming from districts where their constituents oppose the bill and put them in office under the impression that they would not support Obamacare.

If President Obama does not want former Vice President Cheney's prediction that he will be a one-term President to be true, then he must learn how to listen to the will of the American people. President Obama would be wise to follow the model of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and the White House should also be "the People's House." 

Guns Make Us Safer

Liberals and others opposed to the American people being able to own and use guns often argue that the guns lead to murders happening, and that if we got rid of guns, people wouldn't be killed. Yet, history tells us that people were murdered well before guns existed. Julius Caesar, for example, was killed in 44 B.C. The fire-lance, which could be considered the first guns, didn't exist until the 10th century. Murder took place without guns, and gun-free murders continue to take place guns today. Reading the news, there are stories of murder by stabbing, murder by drowning, murder by strangulation, and other means. Criminals do not need guns to kill!

Guns, rather than leading to more crime, actually serve as a deterrent to crime. If you were a criminal on a street with four houses looking to commit a robbery, knowing the owners of three home are armed and that the owners of another are defenseless, you would use common sense to rob the house where the homeowners are defenseless. Further, if someone enters a school looking to kill in a Columbine or Virginia Tech style massacre, they will be able to kill dozens of people if no one is able to stop them. If a majority of people are armed, they'll be stopped after killing just a few people. While every life is precious, it is a better situation for a few people to be killed than dozens to be killed.

If guns led to crime, the leaders of America would never have submitted the Bill of Rights to be added as amendments to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This amendment doesn't force anyone to buy or own a gun, rather it states that people have the right to have guns if they want. It is irresponsible and ignorant for anyone to try to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Further, it is improper: the Constitution can be amended, meaning that if the American people no longer want the right to have guns, there is a proper process to bring about that change.

Four Loko Bans An Example of Government Gone Too Far

It's been in the news lately that many states (Massachusetts and Michigan, for example) are working on and/or announcing bans on alcoholic energy drinks, the most notable one being Four Loko. The bans come because they believe these drinks are a danger following stories about people ending up in the hospital or nearly dead following the abuse of these drinks, along with other alcohols. The FDA this week stated it was planning to declare the combination of alcohol and caffeine "unsafe," and that it could order a ban / seizure of the products (news story).

It should be noted that alcoholic energy drinks have been on the shelves for years. Additionally, people can mix alcohol and energy drinks themselves. Red Bull + Vokda is a popular drink at many bars. At The Pour House in Boston, I tried and enjoyed a drink called The Rejuvenator, which featured the combination of flavored vodka, Red Bull, and Gatorade. I didn't vomit, pass out, black out, or die as a result, because I drank in moderation. I'm sure that if I had 20 drinks in an hour, it would be a different story. In another example, we have a politician in New York who decided to experience Four Loko first hand, doing so in a foolish fashion where he throws up because he had over two and a half of Four Loko in an hour. He basically drank the equivalent of a glass of wine every five and a half minutes for an hour. Had he had one can, he probably would have been fine.

Alcohol is restricted in all 50 states to people of age 21 or higher*. Like tobacco, the decision to drink an alcoholic beverage is one that an adult should be able to make on his or her own. The government shouldn't decide what you can drink, you should decide. What the government's role should be is to make sure that people are able to make an informed decision. That is why I propose that the same standards requiring nutritional data and ingredient disclosure in food be applied to alcoholic beverages. If a can of iced tea has to have nutritional data and an ingredient list, then a can of Four Loko should too. Alcoholic beverages should not receive a special pass from the requirements of other beverages. Perhaps in addition to the normal warning from the Surgeon General on alcoholic beverages, an additional warning about the caffeine / alcohol should be added. In the end, though, if people choose to ignore these warnings, that should be their right and their freedom as an American living in what is supposed to be a free country.

*A future blog will likely discuss the topic of the age 21 drinking age, which has many problems and actually has led to greater rates of alcohol abuse in the United States than in other developed countries with lower drinking ages.