20090909

FNSB Assembly Ordinance No. 2009-40, a tax by any other name....

Check out the FNSB Assembly's latest experiment (in .pdf) in social engineering! Yippiee! We have to head out to the Borough Assembly building this Thursday, and once again micromanage our local leaders and inform them that this is as much a bright idea as our former Ruler's Stamp Act of 1765... Only the Ordinance specifically states that this is not a $.05 tax so much as a 'fee'... Its a fee because it must all go to a "Local Recycling Program Special Revenue Fund" (8.12.039).

Once again, Assembly Woman Nadine Winters is the author, you know, the bitch who stares at the ceiling and ignores testimony! I think the meeting starts at 6 p.m. Not sure when testimony will begin. If you are in Fairbanks and reading this, I think its wise to show up.

EnvironMENTALism at its finest! Folks in Ester are quite pleased however....

Here is my letter to the Assembly:

Borough Assembly,

I am a clerk at a local business, that I'm quite positive grosses over 1 million dollar a year in sales and will be impacted by your possible Ordnance charging our company and the consumers of this town a $.05 'fee' per plastic bag. I curious what the motivation for this is, other than your ridiculous environmental impact and recycling excuse listed within the text of ordinance. Maybe its been too long since you were mere mortals going to the store and buying groceries for your kids, who happen to be a 3 year old toddler and 16 month old who produce large amounts of human waste which require disposal where ever I happen to be with them. I happen to find the plastic bags in which you want to charge me a $.05 'fee' for quite handy for containing urine soaked clothing, disposable, and reusable diapers. I can fit about 5 of these $.05 'fee' bags into my diaper bag for such contingencies.

I also happen to find these bags quite handy for my small garbage cans, which also serve as diaper disposal units. I can find hundreds of uses for these bags, which is why my wife and I collect them and hang on to them for re-use. I'm also concerned about the security of my job as a sales clerk. I use hundreds of these bags back at the gun counter at Frontier Outfitters. This serves to communicate to our front register that a customer has purchased the merchandise they are carrying. If it costs a $.05 'fee' per bag, that clearly will cost consumers more, forcing our business to raise prices just to pay for the overhead of ordering thousands, if not millions, of bags a year.

Charging 'fees' in order to conduct social engineering experiments on the public is purely the wrong function of government, and you are assuming the role as 'ruler' once again as opposed to 'public servant'. Just go back to history, and remember the Stamp Act in which our former rulers charged our ancestors a 'fee' for each sheet of paper in order to make the document printed on the paper 'legal'. We all know where this lead eventually. Our Founders left you and fantastic foundation, that you seem to be tossing out the window (especially you Nadine Winters, have you apologized to those who testified about PM 2.5 standards yet? You know, the ones you ignored staring at the ceiling?). You wonder where the rage at the government is coming from, and this Ordinance is one such fine example. I'm getting sick of having to come down to the Assembly building to testify and micromanage you to ensure you don't pass some hair brained 'fee' for standard goods provided to consumers by stores in order to grow your pet programs for you political backers in 'Big Environment' and 'Big Oil'. You are continuing wasting my precious time with your childish decisions made solely to employ your buddies. We suffer, and you employ your friends, our prices will go up, and I may lose my job when my employer must cut costs. Thanks for kicking me when I'm down, again.

Not too respectfully,

Michael "Sudsy" Sutherland

No comments: