Do not flush the paper litter. We know that God is love and that love does not seek its own. Aubrey has been self employed for 10 years and has purchased and grown 2 salons. Discover how to make the best business plan for your start up with our free online business. Inkspell (Inkworld, #2) by cornelia funke (Goodreads Author) Want to read saving Refresh and try again. Of course, you cant write a great press release without proper press. What if I need someone to do my homework for me for free?
M : crans de veille gratuit
According to san Francisco supervisor Scott wiener, who spearheaded the legislation, had we gone with a general tax, Prop E would have lost badly. . we would have been lucky to get more than 40 of the vote. . San Francisco isnt Berkeley. . For many people, what moved them from skepticism to yes were the guaranteed and important uses. I am not sure i agree with Supervisor wiener. Surely, emphasizing the consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages resonated with voters as much as where the tax funds would have gone. The Proposition e authors knew or should have known that the American beverage Industry would spend heavily to defeat the measure. In fact, the abi engelsk spent more than 10 million to defeat Proposition. In retrospect, the authors of Proposition E misread the voting public as to whether they would support a tax for general purposes which would require only a simple majority for passage.
Proposition E would have placed a two-cent per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages while berkeleys measure d will for now place a one-cent per ounce tax. Proposition E required a two-thirds majority to pass because the tax revenue would have gone into a special fund for recreation and nutrition programs in schools and parks. Proposition E received 55 percent of the vote, less than the two-thirds requirement for passage. Berkeleys measure d required only a majority to pass because the tax funds will go into the general fund. Measure d passed easily with 75 percent of the vote. Why the interest in a soda tax? Research has shown that reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption would reduce the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease ions and other chronic health problems. What is puzzling is why the authors of Proposition E chose to have the tax proceeds go to a special fund rather than to the general fund, thus requiring a two-thirds majority to pass.
You can support independent local journalism by becoming a berkeleyside member. You can choose either a monthly payment or a one-time donation. Stories like this are made possible through your support. Become a member by contributing any amount, and be part of the future of independent, local journalism. Fog City journal news healthcare / San Franciscos Missed Opportunity to pass Anti-Obesity soda tax. Proposition e, san Franciscos effort to curb obesity, failed to pass due to a failure of imagination. Stone, november 19, 2014, it is now old news that San Franciscos proposed Soda tax (Proposition E) did not pass and Berkeleys (Measure D) did. .
Tom, wolfe to give media briefing
The panel will also be responsible for creating an annual report to analyze the impact of this story new ordinance on the public health of Berkeley residents, which proponents of the tax have said will help keep the city on track with its spending and priorities for. Council is not bound by the recommendations of the panel, however. From the ordinance: The city council shall consider, but need not follow, the panels recommendations and shall annually inform the panel as to the extent to which it has implemented the Panels recommendations. The one-page application includes five ways to qualify to be considered for the panel: a background in researching public health issues or evaluating public health programs related to diabetes, obesity and sugary drink consumption; training in early childhood nutrition education; work with a community- or school-based nutrition program; or being. The entire council will receive the full set of applications, and each council member is set to appoint one person to serve on the nine-member panel by the end of February. The tax is slated to be in effect through Dec. The berkeley school board has already nominated several people for the panel, including at least three gardening instructors — daria wrubel, carrie fehr (former) and Matt Tsang — and one school parent, marian Mabel.
At the time of last report, the board planned to make additional nominations, but updated information was not available monday afternoon. M.: see a list of those nominations here. see the application and cover letter online. Related: Op-ed: laying our measure d vote on the cogs of the beverage industry machine (11.05.14 why berkeley passed a soda tax while other cities failed (11.05.14). A record.6 million spent in Berkeley campaigns (11.03.14) Photo essay: Berkeley, a city consumed by a soda tax (10.29.14) Op-ed: we trust officials to spend soda tax money wisely (10.01.14) do you rely on Berkeleyside for your local news?
Berkeley councilman laurie capitelli said previously that, though the tax went into effect Jan. 1, the city will wait to spend any of the money until all legal questions about the tax have been resolved. Officials had earlier expressed some concern that an opponent of the tax might file a lawsuit to challenge. . City spokesman Matthai chakko said, as of Monday, no legal action has been filed. A spokesman for the American beverage Association, roger Salazar, did not respond Monday to a request for comment about the potential for a lawsuit, or other updates from the association since the november election. Update: Salazar said tuesday at about 10:40.
By email that he does not anticipate legal action. According to the council subcommittees, dec. 22 letter to the community, the nation is keeping a close eye on how the city handles its new tax: As Berkeley is the first municipality to successfully tax sugar-sweetened drinks, people all across the country are watching our implementation. This is an invitation to participate in that process. The proceeds from the new tax will go into the citys general fund. From the measure: This general tax will provide revenue to be available for the general governmental needs of the people of Berkeley. That said, the ordinance approved by the voters also establishes a panel of experts to advise council on how and to what extent the city should establish and/or fund programs to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, according to the subcommittee letter. Supporters of measure d have said the money will be spent on programs that improve childrens health across Berkeley.
Friendship in The merchant Of Venice - marked by teachers
Photo: Berkeley vs Big Soda. The city of Berkeley has put out a call for experts interested in joining a new advisory panel to set spending priorities for soda tax dollars approved by voters in november. Four Berkeley city council members who make up a subcommittee focused on Measure d, the the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, released the application to the community in late december. The deadline is Jan. The 1-cent-per-ounce tax on the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages has been conservatively estimated to bring perhaps 200,000 into city coffers each year, according to berkeleys Office of Economic development. But that write number is very much hypothetical, due to the numerous variables — such as local consumption figures, how the city collects the money and whether uc berkeley will also collect the tax — that will impact the final tally. Read complete berkeleyside soda tax coverage, and see the text of the measure.
If passed, Philadelphias soda tax will create another revenue stream for the citys coffers, but why single out drinkers of sugary soft drinks? If the pre-k program truly generates widespread benefits, it should be financed by broad-based taxes. Of course, increasing property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes would trigger a far more powerful backlash. Currently, the draft of the bill is five pages long. No one needs five pages of regulations telling them how much soda they should drink. Most basically, policymakers who assume they know best what others really desire are nannies at best and tyrants at worst. It is deceptive to hide behind young childrens pre-school education to provide the political motivations for an unfair tax on soda drinkers. Government interference with adults choices of what to eat and drink should be rejected in all of its forms, especially when its cloaked in a for the children disguise. Vicki alexander, co-chair of the yes on D campaign, at a pro-soda-tax demonstration in July.
manipulative intent of the soda tax is exacerbated by the dishonest way the bill has been defended. Instead of being forthright that the bill is at least in part meant to encourage people to make supposedly healthier choices, the measure is justified with smokescreen references to funding education. For example, when asked about possible public health benefits in an interview, mayor Kenney didnt straightforwardly point to arguments made by other advocates of soda taxes, but pivoted back to the pre-k education the tax is supposed to fund. Defenses of the soda tax that rest on the pre-k funding are little more than political sleights of hand meant to undermine opposition. More to the point, mayor Kenney apparently is ignorant of the principles of public finance. No tax sticks where it lands. Every tax is shifted forward, backward, or both, along the taxed goods supply chain. Such shifting explains why the one cent per ounce soda tax imposed by berekely, california failed to raise nearly as much revenue as anticipated.
Presidential candidate senator Bernie sanders that it, like all taxes on consumption items, would disproportionately affect low-income people. Mayor Kenney stated, It is immoral and completely hypocritical for these vested corporate interests to pass this tax on to the very people they have profited from for decades. But what makes mayor Kenney think that he holds the moral high ground? Manipulative taxes like the soda tax are equally morally bankrupt because the people of Philadelphia are treated as pawns for bureaucrats to play with until they make the right choices. The right choices, of course, are those that the bureaucrats want them to make, not the ones individuals would freely choose themselves. If the tax was not meant to push people towards what are supposedly healthier choices, why would the city council exempt diet soda from the tax? Diet drinks are at least as unhealthy as sugar-sweentened ones: they, too, are implicated by medical evidence as contributors to obesity and Type ii diabetes. This, more than any other aspect of the proposal, tips its hand as manipulation in a new guise. Philosopher, isaiah slogan Berlin describes regulations like philadephias as attempts to reveal the manipulated persons real self.
Molecular biology: Protein Synthesis - mcat review
Philadelphias City council held a hearing on the 11th of this month about the embattled soda tax, sometimes also called the grocery tax by its opponents. If passed, the legislation in question would place a three-cent tax on each ounce of non-diet soda, including most sugar-sweetened beverages, such as teas and sports drinks. Such taxes usually are proposed for their purported public health benefits, but. Philadelphias measure has report a twist that aims to use the revenue to fund pre-k education for the citys children. But this is just a rhetorical trick. Philadelphias soda tax is the same manipulative move that has been proposed and defeated in so many other states. Philadelphias City council should look to the good examples set by hawaii, illinois, san Francisco, as well as other governments, and keep its nose out of the dietary choices of its people. Philadelphias mayor, jim Kenney, recently defended the soda tax against claims.