Sunday, May 24, 2009

The latest

I haven't had any time to update this with the recent schedule, so I'll hit a couple of things.

1. Obama's SCOTUS pick - I'll reserve comment until the choice is made. I hope it's not Granholm, the Matt Millen of governors. She'll be Obama's Harriet Miers.

2. Obama's taking the game about deficits. If he cares about it, why is his budget . These "cuts" he proposes is a joke. There's a second 750 Billion bank bailout in this budget and a deficit well over a trillion dollars. Bush's worst budgets did not come close to this about, and Bush's fiscal rating as president was an F-, and I've complained about that long before he left office on this very site.

3. Jobs. I didn't know cutting 250,000+ jobs in the auto industry dealerships and other places was supposed to help the American auto worker. The new CAFE standards are going to hurt us even worse than before by including truck. The trucks are still the biggest sellers of US brands.

4. Something interesting in the Detroit mayor race. Dave Bing won the special election awhile back and is up for a full term in the fall. While I was watching old TIVO episondes of 24 and The Ultimate Fighter, I saw a mayor political ad for Ken Cockrel. I didn't have a real dog in that race but the ad was paid for by the 14th District Democratic Committee. That's the John Conyers district. Rick Blocker is the chair there. I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other as I don't live in Detroit, but I found it interesting that a congressional district committee openly got involved in the "nonpartisan" mayoral race. I don't have a problem with it whatsoever, and sometimes I wish the parties here did this more often.

5. Lastly smoking. Leave it to the Lansing elite to push bans on private businesses to control their own decisions when it comes to smoking. The only thing worst than bad ciggarette smoke are anti-freedom advocates who want to ban or tax everything "unhealthy". Right now it is smoking. Next it is beer, wine, and whiskey. Next it is salty foods. Then pop. Then everything else. The real question here is who knows best. Ray Basham in Lansing? Or the owners of the businesses here at home. If Ray Basham or Kevin the "communications guru" do not like smoke in a private restaurant they visit, there's the door. They can go somewhere else. There's plenty of nonsmoking choices out there.

5 comments:

Communications guru said...

Great, I love a personal attack. You are so wrong, again. This is a public health issue. Secondhand smoke kills and makes people sick. Are you denying that? It makes far more people sick than salmonella, and we have laws that protect consumers against that.

How about the small minority of people who still smoke and are endangering the health of the majority go somewhere else; like out the door to smoke?

How about the people who work in the smoke filled restaurant, can they go elsewhere? Why do they have to make a choice between their health and a paycheck?

By the way, genius, beer, wine and whiskey are already taxed, and they have been for many years.

It’s not just the “Lansing elite” that wants this; its about 70 percent of Michigan residents. You are on the wrong side of an issue again. That must really getting old for you?

bear said...

I personally think the folks that we elected work on oh say fixing the state's budget vs. getting all busy messing with people's lives and smoking.

I prefer a smoke free resturant but not at the expense of individual choice.

I would be much more happy with Michigan gov't. if we had a plan to fix the state instead of the political BS we have been subjected too. As a small business owner I am re-shaping the business to not hire anyone this year and just manage our firm at the level we are at currently.

Communications guru said...

This ban is not about individual choice; it’s a public health issue. Secondhand smoke kills and causes numerous disease and ailments. Even if it was a choice issue, why are the 20 percent who still smoke the ones with all the choice? I keep hearing people say, “if you don’t like cigarette smoke, go somewhere else.” Why should they have to? They are not the ones hurting anyone’s health. Smokers are the ones harming the health of innocent bystanders, but people who work and frequent the establishment are left to their mercy. If they choose to light up we are at risk, but if they choose not to. We are safe. Why are they the only ones with the choice?

The smoking ban is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the public's health just as it does with regulations about how restaurants store, handle and prepare food. We don't leave it up to businesses to decide if they will require their employees to wash their hands before preparing customers food, what temperatures they should maintain their food at, or what procedures should be taken when handling food. We require certain regulations be followed to protect the health of the public. It is no different with secondhand smoke.

If you want to talk about budget issues, fine. Smoking is also very costly and is literally sucking the air out of Michigan’s economy. Smoking directly results in $2.65 billion in annual health care costs in Michigan, of which $881 million is born by the state Medicaid program. In fact, each household spends $597 annually in state and federal taxes due to smoking-caused government expenditures. Smoke-free worksites would eliminate these extra health care costs and would do so with virtually no implementation costs.

Republican Michigander said...

Kevin, by your buddies supporting ciggy taxes, you are telling me to out and buy lots of ciggies, cigars, and chew to fill your coffers. On the other hand, you and your government buddies are telling me how bad it is with the bans. Real consistancy there.

""Why should they have to?"""

Because they don't own the business. Some bars/restaurants do not allow smoking. That's their choice. I can't light up at Applebees, Copper Pickle, Stillwater, or Brighton Bar and Grill. That's off the top of my head. I have no problem with that. That was a business decision, not made with the heavy hand of government.

If you think smoking is SO bad overall, eliminate the sin taxes and simply ban it. I oppose that as well, but that's most consistent than relying on the taxes from it to pay Basham and Clack's salaries. I can respect that view, although I disagree with that for the same reason I disagree with prohibition and many aspects of War on Drugs in general.

Communications guru said...

I’m not telling anyone to “buy lots of ciggies, cigars and chew.” The fact is the taxes on those things do not put a dent in the medial costs they cause, much of it paid by taxpayers. Like I said here once before, Smoking directly results in $2.65 billion in annual health care costs in Michigan, of which $881 million is born by the state Medicaid program. In fact, each household spends $597 annually in state and federal taxes due to smoking-caused government expenditures. Smoke-free worksites would eliminate these extra health care costs and would do so with virtually no implementation costs.

So just because people own a business they don’t have to protect the health of their customers and employees? We don't leave it up to businesses to decide if they will require their employees to wash their hands before preparing customers food, what temperatures they should maintain their food at, or what procedures should be taken when handling food. We require certain regulations be followed to protect the health of the public. It is no different with secondhand smoke. This is a public health issue, not a choice or “freedom” issue.

Stop playing dumb and using these straw man arguments. There is no way a complete ban on cigarettes would ever fly, and you know it. That’s why you make that stupid argument. I have no problem with people making a decision with their own bodies. They just can’t make it for other people.

I support a person's right to smoke, especially in the privacy of their own home. However, I firmly believe that smokers' rights end when their personal choices negatively impact the health and well-being of nonsmokers. This is especially important given that secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S.