This page was last updated on May 11, 2010.
Licking salt; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 11, 2010.
This editorial is simply the latest in a very long line of editorials supporting government regulation of personal behavior the Times doesn’t like. This time the enemy is salt. Below are previous examples.
During the last five years alone the Times bombarded us with at least 53 editorials to support banning smoking on private property.
Do you remember the editorial “Silence, please?” In that editorial, the Times lobbied for banning cell phone use on airplanes not for any flight safety or technical concerns, but simply because the editorial board found the practice annoying. The editorial concluded with, “Let’s no [sic] take any chance. Turn the FCC ban into law as soon as possible.”
“Blowing smoke” said, “… some smokers direly warned that Big Brother government would turn its attention to fast-food next. Fat chance of that happening.” Oh yeah? As I noted in my critique of that editorial, the third paragraph of “A food fight over calorie counts” (BusinessWeek; Feb 11, 2008; p. 036) read, “… and in Los Angeles there has even been a discussion of ‘food zoning’ – barring new fast-food eateries from high-obesity neighborhoods.” Guess what? On July 29, 2008, LA city council issued a one-year ban (with the option to extend the ban) on new fast-food restaurants in a 32 square-mile area of south LA.
Have you read any Times editorials speaking out against Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s proposal to tax “sugary” drinks by an additional two cents per ounce? That proposal (similar to one in Philadelphia) would increase the price of a 16-ounce bottle by $0.32. You may recall the Times quickly criticized Mr. Ravenstahl’s proposed tuition tax with no less than three editorials (“Brain dead,” “Talent pool,” and “Shirkers”).
Have you read any Times editorials speaking out against a New York bill proposing “No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food?” With this editorial we know the Times appears to support such government action.
In my critique of “Pill poppers” I wrote, “in case you missed it, it’s [the editorial] laying the foundation for the government to control our lives even more. That’s made clear by this excerpt: ‘The increase would be catastrophic for Medicare, which is already wobbly. Because baby boomers will swamp Medicare, its spending on diabetes is expected to jump from $45 billion to $171 billion and could exceed current projections for all Medicare costs.’ When it comes to a government-run healthcare monopoly, cost control will be the excuse used to control our decisions. We’ve already seen that in the ridiculous tobacco taxes (No, I don’t smoke, chew, etc.) and the proposed taxes on sugar-containing drinks.”
Do not be swayed by emotional pleas, “good intentions,” et cetera. The result of all these programs is to give power to the state by taking our individual liberty one freedom at a time.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.