Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Salt Ban latest in Nanny State efforts

Originally posted at DeskofBrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/saltbanlatestinnannystateefforts



Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) from New York is proposing Bill A10129 which is would impose "up to a" $1,000 fine for the use of salt in food preparation in any restaurant per violation.



Bye Bye McDonald's. So long Checker's Fries.



The new Food Prohibition is just beginning as regulating our activities and freedoms move to the top of the priority list. Michelle Obama is pushing an anti-Obesity campaign and there's movement to alter the labels on sodas.



The billion dollar campaign to alter the food in schools has already been traced to SEIU and the benefits for the 400,000 school workers serving this food.

The workers and their unions recommend that the USDA:


  • Increase federal reimbursement rates for meals to enable
    schools to cover the rising costs of meeting dietary guidelines and to
    purchase fresh, healthy foods. SPEND MORE MONEY




  • Reach more struggling
    families by relaxing eligibility requirements, streamlining application
    processes, and allowing for regional variations in cost of living in
    determining eligibility. COVER MORE PEOPLE - INCREASING COSTS




  • Improve food safety, nutrition,
    health and wellness, and customer service through additional training
    for food service employees. ADDITIONAL TRAINING COST MONEY




  • Fund dinner-time meals for children in afterschool programs whose parents must work long hours. FUND = COST



The freight train of Big Government is headed to our kids' cafeterias, our dinner tables and the drive thru on the corner -- all over America!



Here's the price of Freedom to consume all of that salt:



"The Stanford University School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs
Palo Alto Health Care System have a cheap solution to help solve rising
healthcare expenses: Cut back on salt.





A study by the two groups says that cutting salt by 10% could
prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several
decades and save the government $32 billion in healthcare costs. The
Institute of Medicine says that high blood pressure costs the US $73
billion a year in heathcare costs.
"



Do you see the game?



Just a shell game of save here, spend there. Take away your freedom here, so I can help you over there. Where are all of those Patriot Act opponents?



Federal increases in taxation on cigarettes was 2009, now salt, possibly soda, beer and more - who baby sits the nanny state.







http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/74389-researchers-cut-the-salt-save-billions



http://campaignforqualityservices.org/2008/12/service-workers-unions-call-for-stronger-nutrition-safety-net-for-americas-children.html



http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/03/seiu-fatcats-behind-first-lady%E2%80%99s-anti-obesity-campaign/

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Nanny State Update: Swine Flu


As we officially head into flu season, our politicians are more than happy to trample the Constitution in this age of the "Nanny State"

Reps. George Miller and Lynn Woolsey, California Democrats, have taken the lead to pursue legislature1 to force "sick pay" from employers if the ill are sent home.

Isn't government intrusion amazing.

Scientifically, the infected swine flu worker will have potentially exposed everyone to the virus when they arrived to work in the first place. This is political posturing for those that don't have or receive sick time. While it's noble on one hand, it's full of holes on the other.

"Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn't have to choose between their livelihood and their coworkers' or customer's health" - Rep. Miller

Many businesses are making special accomodations for employees to work from home, participate on conference calls etc...to prevent sick workers from infecting the work place.

But do we need the Federal Government involved?

Small business spokewoman Molly Brogan spoke out: "The more restrictive the government is in how businesses can develop their benefits programs, the less flexible business owners can be. If it's paid sick leave, you're paying somebody who's not going to be there and you have to pay somebody to replace them. That has the potential to affect the bottom line for a lot of small businesses."

The government forcing business, small business or otherwise, to run their business a certain way -- well, no surprise there. We could survey GM or AIG executives and workers what that feels like.

One of the public statements (via Homeland Security) reveals that the federal government has strongly recommended that businesses force employees with the flu to stay home and that they adopt flexible sick-day policies allowing staff to work from home if a family member becomes infected.

Robert Herriman's column examines the hysteria surrounding the Swine Flu, media coverage, and the President's declaration of national emergency.

I expect the Congress to use this as a tool to distract from bigger problems and seem sympathetic to those "sick" workers. If they have to penalize businesses with an unconstitutional action to get votes, then they have proven they will. Chris Dodd is set to prevent this action to the Senate as early as today 2.



1. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6701202.html

2. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-SwineFlu/idUSTRE5A90KM20091110