Today’s suggested topic — should some foods, like raw milk be banned? If they are banned, how should a ban be enforced?
The use of pseudonyms and anonymous postings is, of course, fine.
Although the comments template has a space for a name, email address, and website, those who want to leave a field blank can do so. Comments will be moderated, against profanity or trolls. Otherwise, have at it.
This summer armed government agents raided Rawesome Foods, a Venice, California health food co-op. What were the agents after? Unpasteurized milk, it turns out.
Raw milk raids are happening all over the United States. The Food and Drug Administration warns that raw milk consumption can cause health problems, but a growing community of raw foods enthusiasts are ignoring government recommendations and claiming that they are getting tastier, more nutritious food by going raw.
Reason.tv visited Rawesome to examine the circumstances of the raid and discovered that this particular raw foods case stretches across county lines and involves at least five separate government agencies, despite the fact that not a single member of Rawesome has complained or been harmed by the raw foods. In fact, members have to sign a contract stating that they understand and accept the risks of consuming raw foods before they are allowed to step inside.
If members of a private club sign a waiver stating that they want to drink a certain type of milk, why is the government getting involved? As Jarel Winterhawk, a manager at Rawesome, puts it, “This is America. How are you going to tell me what I can and cannot eat?”
Though no charges have yet resulted from the raid, Rawesome is threatened with shutdown due to the involvement of yet another government agency, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, and the club’s raw goat milk supplier, Healthy Family Farms, has had its dairy license suspended.
“Raw Foods Raid” is written and produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alex Manning and Weissmueller. Senior Producer is Ted Balaker. Music by Jami Sieber, Five Star Fall, and Kammen and Swan (Magnatune Records).
Big government began its comeback during the last administration.
The lesson for libertarians is that liberals and conservatives are equally bad, just on different issues. Voters who want more libertarian government — and many do — should vote for gridlock. Or for a real libertarian, if they can find one.
In the liberal Capital TImes, there’s an interview with the Scott Fitzgerald, who will be the Wisconsin Senate’s new majority leader. (His brother Jeff will be Assembly Speaker.)
I’m not sure what to make of it — there’s certainly not a lot of humility on display:
SF: Well first, I think we are the right people, the right party, at the right time to get the job done. Scott Walker has a huge opportunity to become a reform governor. We’re seeing the same thing with Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey. There’s almost an expectation we’re going to shake things up.
CT: So, the more feathers you ruffle, the better off you will be?
SF: If someone tries to make their case by saying, look, we’re not the niche group that should be cut, or this is not the program that needs to be eliminated, or we are not the union that should be picked on, you know, they can go right ahead. They can be as loud and vocal as they want to be because I have a constituency back home that is going to say this is exactly what we wanted to have happen. And that is going to empower us…
CT: Would you ever run for governor?
SF: I would never say anything that would preclude me from running for higher office.
CT: So maybe Congressman Fitzgerald?
SF: You never know. This is the term for redrawing the district lines.
Whitewater’s forecast calls for a breezy day, with a high temperature of forty-seven degrees.
On this day in 1863, President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address, at a dedication ceremony for a national cemetery at Gettysburg. Lincoln saw suffering, yet was an optimist, believing that some things would endure even through suffering. I believe it was Stanley Crouch who once referred, with respect, to Lincoln as a ‘tragic optimist.’
Whitewater voted on its 2011 budget this week, and there were no surprises. The city lacks a majority of incumbents willing to cut spending, on a budget of over nine million. (Quick note: a local paper has reported that Whitewater’s tax levy is nine million; that’s incorrect. The budget is nine million, a portion of which is the levy, with another large portion coming from other revenues. That is, of course, part of Whitewater’s long-term problem — those other revenues are uncertain.)
Among the suggestions for cuts, even simple suggestions were beyond a majority’s assent. Under those circumstances, a reduction in personnel was even less likely. There’s a lot of effective, but still summer-stock, acting in Whitewater, with much fuss that a single personnel cut is a transgression against humanity. One would think that a bum had tracked mud into the Sistine Chapel. It carries the day, but it’s dumb show, all the same. (I would advocate cutting more than one position, starting near the top.)
One should not doubt that some positions, although of uncertain type and department, are sure to be cut in the years ahead. (I would advocate cutting leaders now, but it’s most likely that Whitewater will cut field workers in the years ahead.)
There’s a funny contention that without an increase in the levy (only a portion of the budget) that Whitewater would not be able to maintain its quality of services. It’s just silly, and presupposes a level of current need and efficiency that few believe exists in Whitewater. This is, though, a status quo town, and anything that avoids hard choices now (over harder realities tomorrow) will carry the day.
Worse, of course, is that this multi-million dollar budget ignores the real difficulties of ordinary people. It’s a satisfied person’s budget.
Who believes, for example, that quality of life in Whitewater truly depends on an increase in taxes, to feed local government? Who, when he wakes, looks out the window, and cries: Thank you, Dear God, for the municipal government that assures our well-being? When most people consider what matters most in life, they think of private, not public, things. There’s a bureaucrat’s vanity in supposing that a municipal government is — in whatever size that it seeks to be — the wellspring of the quality of life. These men and women talk as though a percentage point less in spending would be a loss not only of expenditure, but to the very future of all living things within the city limits.
To exaggerate the need for local government isn’t a grand mistake, but simply grandiose.
Consider this observation, from a post at Reason that Nick Gillespie wrote, about federal spending:
….when you look at the 60 percent increase in total federal outlays (in constant 2010 dollars or 104 percent in 2000 dollars) since Bill Clinton left office, the real question becomes: How the hell did we ever get by as a country without all that extra crap that’s been around for a decade or less? My memory is fading, but in the surplus year of 2000, didn’t we all live in old washing-machine boxes and prepare holiday dinners by cutting pictures of food out of grocery-store circulars? Sure, we were poor (by which I mean unprecedentedly wealthy) but at least we had each other (by which I mean the Internets).
No wonder that the good war-happy people at AEI are bitching and moaning that we oughta crank up defense spending from its puny 4.9 percent of GDP to an Eisenhowerian 10+ percent? More guns, less butter! Then there’s John Podesta, former Clinton admin chief of staff and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, fretting that trimming $255 billion from a 2015 budget coming in at over $4 trillion would “do lasting harm to the health of the American middle class.” More butter (or cholesterol-free equivalent) and about the same amount of guns!
Some who advocate for the status quo believe it a good option; others are probably hoping to get out of town before the futility of current efforts is undeniable.
Whitewater’s reaching the very limits of rhetoric. (For many, who do not feel the benefits of a bureaucrat’s budget, those limits were passed long ago.)
There’s no rhetorical settlement in any of this; what will matter is what happens five or ten years from now.
Our old business park is a perfect example. When built, like all new things, there was so very much promise and hope. Now, years later, no one thinks that way — it’s a park all right, with lots of vacant land. No one bothers to trumpet it now — it’s middling condition belies proud claims of success. There’s now a new, next big thing.
Expect more, not less, of how the municipal administration has to ‘get its story out,’ or ‘communicate better,’ or develop a ‘good PR’ story.
(You know, and I know, too, that there’s a way in which some think that if there were no criticism, there would be no problems. For those who believe this way, there’s no convincing otherwise. Although they dislike the remarks of others, they adore their own statements. It’s as though, when they see their own words on newsprint, no matter how improbable or silly their claims, they’re sure they’re looking at the natural laws of the known universe.)
It’s lack of good policy, not a lack of public relations, that’s killed real prosperity in our small town.
The forecast for Whitewater calls for a mostly cloudy day with a high temperature of thirty-seven degrees.
It’s Market Day pickup at Lincoln School and the high school.
The Wisconsin Historical Society recalls that on this day, generations ago,
1930 – Beloit Area Home Raided
On this date federal agents and county deputies raided Otto Matschke’s home, north of Beloit, and seized an illegal still and 300 gallons of contraband moonshine. [Source: Janesville Gazette November 19, 1930, p.1]
Bush’s self-perception and political brand was that of a free-market conservative. But he had to ditch that when he concluded in the frightening days of 2008 that only the federal government was big enough to save the U.S. financial system.
He doesn’t say this but he essentially was a free-market conservative when the economy was on the way up, and an interventionist when it was on the way down.
It’s a variation of the criticism of Wall Street heard in recent years; financial executives sought to privatize the profits while socializing the losses….
The 2010 Leonid meteor shower runs from Wednesday, Nov. 10, through Sunday, Nov. 21. The peak will be the nights between the 17th and the 19th.
The Leonids are famous for being spectacular storms — since the orbit of the Temple-Tuttle comet intersects with that of Earth, the debris cloud our planet passes through each year is dense and full of particles and meteoroids. In optimal viewing conditions on a good year, you can see between 15 and 30 meteors per hour streaking across the sky during the peak.
Whitewater’s conditions aren’t (!) likely to be optimal, but you way have better conditions in your own area.
Suddenly the “drowned rat” look became adorable! Longleat Animal Park has two baby otters, Sumalee and Kasem, just 14 weeks old. In this video, the cute duo are learning to swim. They first were trained in a sink, then progressed to a bath, and now their skills are truly being tested… in a paddling pool.
Today’s forecast calls for a rainy day for Whitewater.
Whitewater’s Police Commission will meet tonight at 7 p.m. The agenda is available online.
At ScienceNews.org, there’s a story with a warning for traveling hamsters, and presumably humans, too: Jet Lag Makes Hamsters Dumb. Here’s the scoop —
In addition to making you groggy and dazed, jet lag may make you stupid. A study presented November 15 at the annual Society for Neuroscience meeting finds that hamsters suffering extreme, chronic jet lag had about half the normal rate of new neuron birth in a part of the brain. What’s more, these animals showed deficits in learning and memory.
Jet lag poses a serious health threat, said study coauthor Erin Gibson of the University of California, Berkeley. Studies have shown that people with work schedules that require them to frequently change their sleep patterns have higher rates of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancer.
Think that ‘clean’ elections laws keep elections, well, fair and clean? You might be surprised. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering an Institute for Justice challenge to the fairness of Arizona’s supposedly clean election laws.
Here’s a video from the IJ entitled, “The Dirty Game of AZ’s “Clean Elections.” Below the video, I have placed the part of the text of a web release about what’s a stake: privately-funded candidates lose out as taxpayer money drowns out the message of candidates who rely on their own supporters’ voluntary contributions rather than government money.
Arlington, Va.—On, Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to hear a challenge by the Institute for Justice to Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. Actions taken by the High Court earlier this year lead many to believe there is a better-than-average chance the Court will accept this case for review.
For a brief, funny video explaining how the “Clean Election” system rigs political races in favor of government-funded candidates, visit: www.ij.org/AZCleanElectionsVideo.
Arizona’s “Clean Elections” Act gives public money to politicians to run for office and squelches the free speech of independent groups, as well as candidates who choose to forgo taxpayer dollars and instead raise their own funds for their campaigns. For every dollar an independent group opposing a publicly financed candidate or a traditionally funded candidate spends above a certain amount, the government hands taxpayer dollars over to the publicly financed candidates in the race. This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The Act curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.
Whitewater’s lengthy budget process draws to a close. I offer proposed changes as a longstanding objection to current policy; I don’t expect that any of these changes will be implemented this year. In time, though, Whitewater will have to make drastic reductions, and the longer they’re put off, the worse they’ll be.
There are four points to consider: our current economic situation, our current fiscal (municipal budgetary) policy, changes to make, and the advantage of those changes.
Whitewater’s economy.
We’re a struggling town, with child poverty above of average of other towns — that’s the truth that town squires refuse to discuss. Our current policies have left thousands, in a small city, with no advantage or opportunity. Whitewater’s municipal manager has his Potemkin Village, useful to no one. Each year this persist, Whitewater draws closer to a permanent, but ignored, underclass.
A few striving bureaucratic men, eager to justify their paltry accomplishments as greatness, trumpet empty schemes over lasting prosperity. No proud project, no vainglorious vision, has improved the condition of those now distressed. On the contrary, there are likely more residents living in poverty in Whitewater today than in decades.
Municipal Finances.
Our city manager presides over a city more impoverished than when he first took office, and a municipal government whose future fiscal
prospects are precarious. The City of Whitewater’s own financial analysis paints a stark, bleak landscape. See, Whitewater’s Fiscal Trend Analysis. Whitewater’s prospects are troubled, as I have written then:
Municipal government’s revenues per capita.
Page 5 tells the tale on revenues per capita, from 1988 to 2009. Beginning in 2001, revenues per capita begin a precipitous plunge, as the city gets less each year in revenue. The city’s analysis, following the graph, is telling:
The warning trend is that there is a decrease in net operating revenues per capita occurring in Whitewater. Over the studied 21 year period, adjusting for inflation, revenues per capita has varied from $275.2 (1989) to $355.66 (2001). For 2009, the Revenue Per Capita equals $278.97. Since 2001, revenues per capita has been steadily declining. This reclects [sic] lack of growth in the City’s major revenue source, – state shared revenues.
It’s true, of course, that the ground on which so much relies has been the shifting (simply eroding, really) sand of shared revenues. In this critical respect, we are considerably different from most of Wisconsin communities of similar size. I’ve written on this topic before.
Municipal government’s net direct debt service.
Page 35 shows how the city’s net direct debt service has been rising markedly from 2005 through 2009. Here’s the city’s analysis:
According to credit industry standards, debt service on net direct debt exceeding 20 percent of operating revenues is considered a potential problem. Ten percent is considered acceptable.
In analyzing this trend, the City in 2006 had a percentage of 24.35% which is considerably above the credit industry standard.
However, because the City has issued $ 3,618,622 in new debt for TID#4 in 2005, $500,000 in 2006, and $5,600,000 in 2008, this percentage will be increasing. The general fund has only a small portion of the total debt service outstanding for the City. 85% of the net direct debt service is due to borrowings for TID #4. The balance of 15% is supported by the shared revenue utility payment from the power plant.
Policy statements should be developed by the City that would indicate desirable levels of debt service as well as procedures for analyzing future debt service. Suggested policies are that 1) total debt service for general obligation debt will not exceed 10 percent of annual operating revenues and 2) before bonded long-term debt is issued, the impact of debt service on total annual fixed costs will be analyzed.
Our municipal administration relies on a drying stream of state shared revenues. We rely on this more than most cities of similar size. See, The City Manager’s Selective and Deceptive Use of Data. Even as the city’s reliance on Madison proves imprudent, city manager Brunner has committed this small, struggling town to a tech park project that “relies on millions in public grants, millions in subsidized public bonds, will use a third of its space for a publicly-funded tenant, has no clear private purpose, violated commonsense competitive principles in awarding contracts, was once shut down for federal violations of obvious competitive rules, takes place in a town that has high poverty that the project has no hope of alleviating, and that’s nearly certain to fail as other projects of its kind typically do.” See, Whitewater’s Innovation Center: Good for Producing Innovative, ‘International’ Fairy tales.
For it all, what kind of budget does our city manager produce for 2011? Nothing but a status quo, kick-the-can-down-the-road effort. Here’s how, with America, Wisconsin, and Whitewater facing hard times, city manager Brunner describes his budget:
This slight increase in the tax rates won’t really put much of an impact on residents….
We try to sail a lean ship by producing a high level of services at the lowest tax rate possible.
Madison’s significant but dwindling shared revenues to Whitewater are responsible for this; the city manager’s budget is balanced through others’ earnings, not his own.
If our situation is troubled — and it is — Brunner can’t seem to grasp that whatever our relationship to other cities now, we need to improve our position. That means lower taxes and less spending. Brunner’s budget is about trudging along, preserving as much of government as possible, and hoping like mad that his administration can rely on grants and shared revenue for as long as possible, to keep going and generate publicity for showy projects.
Seeing how many plates a man can keep spinning at once isn’t prudent policy or good government; it’s a circus act.
Changes in Spending from the Proposed Budget.
I believe in a much smaller budget, with a minimum burden on taxpayers, and with preservation of services that recognize the community in which we actually live. Significantly, though, I am opposed to spending cuts that affect services disproportionately benefitting the disadvantaged. I also strongly oppose the city’s grand projects that, in the end, will either prove ineffectual, or a kind of corporate welfare (itself a mistake and disincentive to efficiency).
Here’s a copy of the 2011 proposed budget, with recommended spending reductions and a memo in reply from Whitewater’s police chief, Jim Coan, that I have attached at the end.
One quick note: For all the millions involved, only two council members took the time to propose additional savings. Only two. That no others on our Common Council could find suggestions of their own to add to this list, is astonishing. Those two who have offered suggestions should be commended. They did the good work others have ignored.
Spending changes (either more or less):
1. Support all the proposed reductions in spending that council members Singer and Butler have, separately, proposed, with the change to police force reductions as note below. (Reductions over present.)
2. Establish a permanent position overseeing our food pantry and services for the needy. (Increase over present.) Principal task is to develop a modern and professional method of food distribution for the poor of Whitewater. Significant emphasis on finding a better location and contemporary standards for food distribution. This should be a three-year position, at a minimum. City to provide effective assistance to overcome objections. Rome was not built in a day.
3. Restore library hours. (Restoration over present proposed reduction.) These cuts disproportionately affect the disadvantaged. Those who have more should feel cuts first.
4. Keep parks and recreation fees where they are. (Restoration over proposed fee increase.) This idea is a diffident man’s cut, asking other people to pay more while unnecessary bureaucrats keep their jobs. A city manager who advocates cuts like this is more concerned about preserving an institutional status quo than making true reforms. (That’s a joke, of course — there’s not a reformist element anywhere in this municipal administration. It’s all status quo now, status quo tomorrow, status quo forever.)
5. Eliminate two administrative posts, effective March 31, from among the following four: assistant to the city manager, director of finance, director of neighborhood services, director of public works. One subordinate from these groups would become a team leader (if there are subordinates). (Reductions over present.) Which leader occupies these post is a concern of others; that we have too much administration is clear.
6. Return to the city any and all compensation the city manager receives for work on the Community Development Authority. (Reductions over present.) The best course would be to remove the city manager from this role, as it creates conflicts and allows only the speedier propagation and adoption of bad ideas.
7. Eliminate one FTE in the police department, as proposed, but for the administrative lieutenant’s position within the department. (Reductions over present.) These duties would become those of the police chief. We’re a small town – we don’t need that much administration. Which leader occupies the post is a concern of others; that we have too much administration is clear.
8. Reduce consulting expenses 25% over proposed budget. (Reductions over present.) Those leaders working in the administration should be expected to know and manage planning within their areas of responsibility. Those leaders who require significant assistance from outside consultants should not be retained.
Result: More services for the needy, while returning all remaining amounts to the taxpayers who, through their own efforts, earned them. We would have both a leaner and more humane municipal government. The arrogance of big projects in a small town has come only at the expense of ordinary residents.
For these changes, Whitewater would save hundreds of thousands dollars, offer more to residents, and bring this administration away from public relations and closer to worthy governance.
