It's Tea Time

So it's official, the tax is going through. The average price on a pack of cigarettes in New York state will now be close to $10 a pack, while in New York City it will be closer to $11.

It's obvious this "chasing money" plan for getting money from cigarette taxes will not work. As taxes increase, less people smoke, and as less people smoke, they are forced to further increase taxes. Believe it or not, eventually there really won't be enough people smoking to generate the funds our greedy government desires.

So here's the really important question that no one seems to be asking yet:

What comes next? NY state will obviously not do the intelligent thing, which would be balancing the budget without these revenues included. So how will they fill the gap moving forward?

The idea of a "sugar" tax has been floated, on things such as soda and candy bars. But honestly, people will just stop using them too.

The reason is less financial then it is societal. You see, to justify these taxes government needs to vilify the products being taxed. They need to convince people that they are bad parents if they allow their children to consume them. They need to put forth the idea that somehow you are less appealing or healthy as an individual if you consume them. Over time these silly notions have an effect, and eventually the societal pressures of your peers who have already conformed become so overbearing, or just plain annoying, that it becomes simpler for us to just find an alternative.

So even if sugar is the next target in the name of the public good, eventually a new target will need to be found. So let's think deeper here. What comes after that? It's important to consider all of this, because one thing I know for certain is that it won't end with either cigarettes or sugar.

Do you have a little guilty pleasure you enjoy, something that might be judged unhealthy or potentially damaging to the environment? You might want to start doing a personal audit of the things you enjoy in your life, and then start paying attention to politics, because you just might be the next one to sacrifice for the good of the whole.

I've read quite a few articles today on this subject, and one thing I noticed immediately was that the current length of time you can collect unemployment was omitted from nearly all of them.

I feel it is extremely important that people understand exactly how long you can collect unemployment at this point in time, and then think about whether or not you think these folks really could not find a job:

Unemployment insurance was intended as temporary relief for the jobless. Workers originally could collect benefits for up to 26 weeks, in most circumstances, and up to 39 weeks in areas of high unemployment.

But under multiple extensions already passed by Congress, workers can now collect payments for as long as 99 weeks — nearly two years — in states with the highest unemployment rates. Half of those on unemployment now have been receiving benefits for more than six months.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38990_Page2.html#ixzz0rs0ViyWS

It frustrates me that when telling such an important story, a story we all have a vested interest in, most leave out what is the most pertinent piece of information.

Now I don't want to devolve into a tirade on how many of these articles are back-handed swipes at Republican's. I am weary of such fights. I will however point out that in the articles which did not include the information above, one thing was included:

Washington Post

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined a united Republican caucus in voting to block the measure

Seattle Times

Republicans continue blockade of federal aid bill

Dallas News

Senate Republican's cite deficit, kill state fiscal aid

Associated Press

Stymied by GOP, Democrats at loss on jobs agenda

OzarksFirst.com

Republicans Block Extension of Unemployment Benefits

LA Times

Senate Republicans on Thursday once again blocked legislation to reinstate long-term unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their aid, prolonging a stalemate that has left more than a million people without federal help.

Examiner

Unemployment benefits extension denied: Republicans defeat Democrats' jobs bill

New York Magazine

Republicans Kill Democrats’ Unemployment Relief Bill

I could go on, but it's Friday, and it's time to start enjoying the day!

No, seriously.

Amid the mounting frustration, UN chief Ban Ki-moon asked former US president Bill Clinton to "assume a leadership role" in coordinating the international aid, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press briefing.

"The aim... is to provide strategic guidance to the United Nations involvement at an international level," Nesirky said.
Clinton added: "The trick is to get the Haitian people back where they can stop living from day-to-day and start living from week-to-week or month-to-month and then start the long-term efforts.

"They, the leaders there, want to build a functioning, modern state for the first time, and I will do what I can to faithfully represent and work with all the agencies of the UN and help them get it done," he added.

Really Bill, is that the "trick"? Brilliant, glad you're on top of things.

Long story short: Haiti is screwed. The people who are acting like they care are only doing this for their ego and any political gain that might come from being involved. I am willing to bet that ten years from now, Haiti will still be an absolutely hellish place to live.

Why wouldn't it be. How many times do you think something to the effect of Clinton's comments have been uttered? Great, Haiti wants to build a "functioning, modern state". What did they want before, an ass backwards broken state? If so, well done on that front.

What a horrible state of being for the Haitian people, and with nothing but talk from bureaucrats to sustain them. Too bad they can't eat speeches, they'd be in good shape.

Haiti is decimated. It may or may not be one of the world's worst places to live now. I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure, because I'm not that interested in sticking that kind of information into my brain.

One thing I can say with certainty, however, is that crises such as these lead to an absolutely incredible outpouring of stupid. Now I know this stupidity is predicated on the belief that self sacrifice is the most noble of causes, but can we at least allow logic to seep into the cracks of our altruistic grandeur? Just a little?

If you peruse Yahoo Answers, which I often do when I'm antsy, you'll find quite a bit of questions relating to Haiti these days. Now I know Yahoo Answers is not an accurate representation of any specific cross section of our culture (or species), but it is an easy way for me to point out a set of behaviors I feel are typical of the opportunist altruist.

Before I continue I feel it necessary to point out that I do understand the desire to help another human being in need. I am not a sadist. What bothers me is what we consider to be help, and what we consider not to be help. For instance, sometimes not helping can be the best way to help. To illustrate this particular point, we'll go back to Yahoo Answers:

Here is a question posted by "Pat", who I assume to be a young woman but could just as easily be a young man (damn androgynous names):

Does anyone know of an alternative spring break for Haiti?
I'd like to somehow go to Haiti for my school spring break and help out for a week. Does anyone know of an organization I could go through?

On its face this question seems harmless enough. Even a bit sweet. Hey, who wouldn't think it was nice of this young woman/man to dedicate her spring break time to go to Haiti and do some good. Everyone who answered this question seemed to agree, and were more than willing to give her options for getting herself to Haiti. Everyone except me that is.

If you're someone who agrees with some or most of the other things I've written, you've probably already figured out what bothers me about this. It probably bothers you too. You may even have had a conversation with your monitor right after reading this young woman's (I'm going with woman on this) question. I can't guess the exact nature of that conversation, but I'm willing to bet it was rather misanthropic.

So here's the problem: This young woman is in college. She has no skill set that would be useful in the current environment in Haiti. To the contrary, her presence there would be of serious detriment to the Haitian people. You see, once her little feet (I envision her as skinny and petite, who wants to envision an obese woman in Haiti?) touch the soil of Haiti, she is no different than the Haitian's currently stuck there. She will have no way to acquire food other than through that which is supported by aid groups, no way to get water, no shelter. And if she does acquire these things, which she likely will, she will only be taking away from those who truly needed it. She doesn't need it right now, she has food, water, shelter...she should stay where she is. Hence by not helping, she is helping.

Haiti doesn't need more unskilled laborers. They are essentially a nation that is made up of unskilled laborers. Their fertility rate is one of the higher rates in the western hemisphere, churning out more low level workers by the day. What they need are visionary engineers, folks who have a great deal of experience working with important infrastructural systems like water and power. They need mouths to feed that are truly worth feeding the scarce amount of food and water they currently have. People who bring the promise of Haiti becoming a better place to live in the future. I doubt this is what they'll get.

I had planned on discussing the money situation (i.e. donations, etc) with Haiti as well, but I have some other things I must attend too. In lieu of me explaining I'll let an unlikely source explain: MSNBC.

Donations of old clothes, canned goods, water and outdated prescriptions are accumulating, said Brooks. While such items sound useful, they’re actually expensive to sort, to transport and to distribute, she said. Cast-off drugs can be dangerous.

Oftentimes, the household items donated are simply not useful to the disaster victims they’re intended to help.

“I guarantee you someone is going to send a winter coat or high-heeled shoes,” Brooks said.

In fact, after the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004, aid organizers in Sri Lanka were forced to deal with donations of stiletto shoes, expired cans of salmon, evening gowns and even thong panties, according to news reports. In Florida, a truckload of mink coats showed up during the 2004 hurricane season, Rothe-Smith said, a likely tax write-off for a retailer having trouble pushing furs.

And they didn't even (shocker) mention the corruption involved in a government like Haiti. How exactly can you donate money in confidence to a place that hasn't made any progress with the aid it's received prior to a disaster?

Oh yeah, ignorance, I forgot.