I've grown tired of reading study after study and the many different findings that all seem to contradict one another or are just totally ridiculous. So I decide to call the National Safety Council and ask them "What is the most conclusive data you've got?" ... Unfortunately the person I really need to speak to was already gone for the day but the person I DID speak to (who admitted they were knowledgeable but not an expert on the topic) recommended I start by looking at a recent Virginia Tech study.
After starting to read it I realized that I've already been through it but I do agree with some of the opinions they offer in this part:
The Disconnect Between Naturalistic and Simulator Research
It is important to keep in mind that a driving simulator is not actual driving. Driving simulators engage participants in tracking tasks in a laboratory. As such, researchers that conduct simulator studies must be cautious when suggesting that conclusions based on simulator studies are applicable to actual driving. With the introduction of naturalistic driving studies that record drivers (through continuous video and kinematic sensors) in actual driving situations, we now have a scientific method to study driver behavior in real‐world driving conditions in the presence of real‐world daily pressures. As such, if the point of transportation safety research is to understand driver behavior in the real‐world (e.g., increase crash risk due to cell phone use), and when conflicting findings occur between naturalistic studies and simulator studies, findings from the real‐world, and not the simulator‐world, must be considered the gold standard.
It is also critical to note that some results of recent naturalistic driving studies, including those highlighted here as well as others (e.g., Sayer, Devonshire and Flanagan, 2007) are at odds with results obtained from simulator studies. Future research is necessary to explore the reasons why simulator studies sometimes do not reflect studies conducted in actual driving conditions (i.e., the full context of the driving environment). It may be, as Sayer, Devonshire and Flanagan (2007) note, that controlled investigations cannot account for driver choice behavior and risk perception as it actually occurs in real‐world driving. If this assessment is accurate, the generalizability of simulator findings, at least in some cases, may be greatly limited outside of the simulated environment.
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Why Am I Opposed to Cell Phone Bans?
With a growing number of Cities and States implementing 'Fine-Based' bans on hand held devices while driving I feel it is important that the data used to base the decision of such legislation be accurate and unbiased. Furthermore I feel it is import that these bans actually address the problem and do not create additional problems; either by way of adding undo finical strain on innocent motorists or by over-extending those involved with enforcing the bans and indirectly creating more harm than good. I think most would agree it is not advantageous to take away the personal freedoms of citizens and/or fine those who do not abide by the ban when there is little to no benefit of implementing or enforcing the ban. Nor is it beneficial for police officers to be apprehending cell phone users instead of violent criminals, especially when the decision to do so is based off of flawed, biased, or incorrect data.
Thus far I have found multiple studies that paint a distorted picture of the dangers related to cell phone use while driving and feel it is unfair and irresponsible for legislators to even consider implementing any type of bans based upon this data. Additionally I have found no evidence that cell phone and texting bans have a positive effect in areas that have implemented them. Typically proponents for these types of bans complain there is no positive effect due to lack of enforcement while enforcement officials argue that they are either enforcing the bans but it is having little effect or that the bans are too difficult to enforce. Whether you feel cell phone use while driving is dangerous or not, there is more and more evidence that banning these devices, in any capacity, is not accomplishing the intended goal and merely adding undue hardship on citizens and law enforcment officials in those communities that implement these bans.
Thus far I have found multiple studies that paint a distorted picture of the dangers related to cell phone use while driving and feel it is unfair and irresponsible for legislators to even consider implementing any type of bans based upon this data. Additionally I have found no evidence that cell phone and texting bans have a positive effect in areas that have implemented them. Typically proponents for these types of bans complain there is no positive effect due to lack of enforcement while enforcement officials argue that they are either enforcing the bans but it is having little effect or that the bans are too difficult to enforce. Whether you feel cell phone use while driving is dangerous or not, there is more and more evidence that banning these devices, in any capacity, is not accomplishing the intended goal and merely adding undue hardship on citizens and law enforcment officials in those communities that implement these bans.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Allentown City Council BANNED CELL PHONES Last Night
It's true ... Allentown now has a cell phone ban
I went to this meeting armed to the hilt with REAL data against this getting passed but I was given only 3 minutes to speak!!! It took me 3 DAYS to research everything! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! What REALLY makes me mad is how they *PASSED A LAW* without being AT ALL informed on the subject!!!
When speaking, Mike Schlossberg (the author of this nightmare) often miss quoted the only study he referenced while drafting this piece of garbage and not a single council member even noticed. (Note: It was a study done with only 40 people, some who never owned a cell phone, the study was done in a driving simulator, the study arbitrarily mentions an "increased rate of crashes" when in fact crashes are down 20% since 2000 and cell phone subscriptions are up 1,262.4% since 1994, so on and so on ...) Also just minutes before the meeting started I was showing Councilman Julio Guridy the U.S. Census "Motor Vehicle Crash Data" and it was "NEW" information to him!? Which means... there MORONS passed this thing without ever ONCE looking at the crash statistics ... not to even formulate a baseline?!
When the meeting was over I attempted to speak to Mike Schlossberg, I tried to ask him what he read in the study that made him think this is a matter that needed legislation, but he just kept telling me he wasn't going to talk about it and acted like a HUGE DICK!! I can only suspect it is because he didn't read or understand the study and the bias of it's findings.
With all that said ...
I CHALLANGE **ANYONE** TO DEBATE ME ON THIS SUBJECT!
While I would preferr it be Mike Schlossberg he doesn't know enough about it to even try. (Does my challange seem childish or baiting? Remember... he authored a law to take away your rights ... don't you want to make sure he actually knows something about the subject? Only 4 people spoke on the matter before it was voted on and I was THE ONLY ONE to present any data)
Wanna see how stupid the study used as the foundation of this ban is for yourself ... here it is: A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. (Be sure not to miss the parts where they say ... we didn't find evidence that drunk driving is really dangerous but just ignore it ... i'll try to find time to point out each of the flaws in this study at a later time)
I went to this meeting armed to the hilt with REAL data against this getting passed but I was given only 3 minutes to speak!!! It took me 3 DAYS to research everything! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! What REALLY makes me mad is how they *PASSED A LAW* without being AT ALL informed on the subject!!!
When speaking, Mike Schlossberg (the author of this nightmare) often miss quoted the only study he referenced while drafting this piece of garbage and not a single council member even noticed. (Note: It was a study done with only 40 people, some who never owned a cell phone, the study was done in a driving simulator, the study arbitrarily mentions an "increased rate of crashes" when in fact crashes are down 20% since 2000 and cell phone subscriptions are up 1,262.4% since 1994, so on and so on ...) Also just minutes before the meeting started I was showing Councilman Julio Guridy the U.S. Census "Motor Vehicle Crash Data" and it was "NEW" information to him!? Which means... there MORONS passed this thing without ever ONCE looking at the crash statistics ... not to even formulate a baseline?!
When the meeting was over I attempted to speak to Mike Schlossberg, I tried to ask him what he read in the study that made him think this is a matter that needed legislation, but he just kept telling me he wasn't going to talk about it and acted like a HUGE DICK!! I can only suspect it is because he didn't read or understand the study and the bias of it's findings.
With all that said ...
I CHALLANGE **ANYONE** TO DEBATE ME ON THIS SUBJECT!
While I would preferr it be Mike Schlossberg he doesn't know enough about it to even try. (Does my challange seem childish or baiting? Remember... he authored a law to take away your rights ... don't you want to make sure he actually knows something about the subject? Only 4 people spoke on the matter before it was voted on and I was THE ONLY ONE to present any data)
Wanna see how stupid the study used as the foundation of this ban is for yourself ... here it is: A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. (Be sure not to miss the parts where they say ... we didn't find evidence that drunk driving is really dangerous but just ignore it ... i'll try to find time to point out each of the flaws in this study at a later time)
CELL PHONE BAN INFORMATION (Part 1)
CELL PHONE BAN INFORMATION (Part 1) Fatal Crashes vs. Cell Phone Subscibers from 1994 to 2008 Prepared by: Craig Friebolin - March, 2010 ... | ||||
| Year | All Crashes Nationally | Fatal Crashes Nationally | Cell Phone Subscibers | |
| 1980 | 17,900,000 | 53,200 | no data | |
| 1985 | no data | no data | 203,600 | |
| 1990 | 11,500,000 | 46,800 | 4,368,686 | |
| 1994 | no data | 36,254 | 19,283,306 | |
| 1995 | 10,700,000 | 37,241 | 28,154,414 | |
| 1996 | no data | 37,494 | 38,195,466 | |
| 1997 | no data | 37,324 | 48,705,553 | |
| 1998 | no data | 37,107 | 60,831,431 | |
| 1999 | no data | 37,140 | 76,284,753 | |
| 2000 | 13,400,000 | 37,526 | 97,035,925 | |
| 2001 | no data | 37,862 | 118,397,734 | |
| 2002 | no data | 38,491 | 134,561,370 | |
| 2003 | 11,800,000 | 38,477 | 148,065,824 | |
| 2004 | 10,900,000 | 38,444 | 169,467,393 | |
| 2005 | 10,700,000 | 39,252 | 194,479,364 | |
| 2006 | 10,400,000 | 38,648 | 219,652,457 | |
| 2007 | 10,600,000 | 37,435 | 243,482,202 | |
| 2008 | no data | 34,017 | 262,720,165 | |
| 2009 | no data | no data | no data | |
| 2010 | no data | no data | no data | |
| %(+/-) | 0.9% Decrease* | 6.2% Decrease | 1,262.4% Increase | |
* 0.9 Decrease from 1995 to 2007 Subscribers Average Call Length: (approx) 2.3 minutes | ||||
Conclusion: Assuming that cell phones are indeed a distraction; they are no more distracting than other common tasks that an overwhelming majority of drivers are already equipped to handle. (i.e. - looking in a rear view mirror, or rolling down a window). Because cell phones do not increase the amount of motor vehicle accidents it is clear that only the likelihood of a driver being on a cell phone at the time of an accident has actually increased. | ||||
Perspective: Total US Licenced Drivers in 1995 was: 176,628,482Perspective: USA Smoking Death rate extrapolations (2010): 440,000 per year | ||||
All Crash Data: U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1067.pdf | ||||
| Fatal Crash Data: Fatality Analysis Reporting System http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ | ||||
| Cell Data: CTIA - International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Midyear_2009_Graphics.pdf | ||||
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Responce to Michael Donovan's recent post
City Councilman and Allentown Parking Authority Board Member Michael Donovan recently posted this blog entry: Parking Ticket Fines ... below are my thoughts:
@STREET CLEANING:
Wow ... you're my hero. Except for the fact that Street Cleaning in Allentown is COMPLETELY UNNESASSARY! I've spoken to several people in the Allentown Streets Department as to why they do so much redundant street cleaning and within a day found a reasonable solution that would eliminate all the parking havoc caused by the current method. I then presented that solution to the Streets Department and never got a response to my endless follow-up calls. Next I presented a case for a performance audit of current Street Cleaning methods to the City Controller and "surprise surprise" I got no response. The fact of the matter is; that a reasonably priced upgrade to the city's water system would solve MANY PROBLEMS, but the current method that involves two city departments following each other around for countless man hours and requires every citizen to move their car off the streets in a city that is already hard-pressed for parking seems like the cheaper, easier and more logical way to go, right?
@DOUBLE PARKING:
Because some grumpy old man at the Morning Call wrote one of the worst, one-sided, articles about double parking ever (Paul Carpenter: Double-parking plague infects city); you're going to raise the fine? (I see no mention of enforcement, just rising the fine; which will actually accomplish nothing) Now, I admit some people double park in a very inconsiderate manner ... they park in the middle of the street then leave the vehicle sitting, while others, pullover, do a quick 'drop-off' to let a passenger out who may have a heavy item or child/children with them, etc.. But to simply punish EVERYONE is not the answer because it doesn't address the problem.
The REAL problem is; THERE IS NO PLACE TO PARK! This is an ENORMOUS FAILURE on the part of the Allentown Parking Authority. With that said I would like to add; WOW YOU HAVE NERVE! YOU HAVE FAILED AND NOW YOU WANT TO FURTHER PUNISH THE CITIZENS OF ALLENTOWN FOR YOUR FAILURE!?!? I am very very very un-impressed.
There are only and handful of solutions to the city's parking problems and they are clear cut:
1) The Allentown Parking Authority must buy land, build parking lots, and offer free parking to residents to alleviate congestion.
And/Or
2) The City and the Parking Authority need to work together and not allow houses to be converted to apartments in areas with little or no parking. Furthermore they need to convert some of the multi-family buildings back to single homes.
Raising fines to give the 'appearance of action' does NOTHING to actually solve the problem.
@TRUCK RESTRICTION:
THIS LAW IS MORONIC! If a truck is parked on a city street in a manner that obstructs the flow of traffic and is a danger then give it a ticket. But to simply BAN a truck from parking anywhere is stupid! This is clearly something that falls into the "We have To-Many-Laws category" since other laws already address any REAL PROBLEM that could occur from an oversized vehicle being parked on the street. All this law does is punish and inconvenience people who happen to drive a truck. (PERIOD)
@MULTIPLE TICKETS:
Every once in a while you do something that will only help bring attention to the fact that Allentown Parking Authority is out of control. When we have a city full of hard-to-ignore, big-yellow-boots, on every car, truck, SUV, baby stroller and ambulance; people will start to take a good long look at how the APA is run and I can assure you they will not be pleased.
------------------------------------------------
For more information on the Corrupt, Wasteful, Hypocritical, Nuisance that is the APA visit this site about the Allentown Parking Authority
@STREET CLEANING:
Wow ... you're my hero. Except for the fact that Street Cleaning in Allentown is COMPLETELY UNNESASSARY! I've spoken to several people in the Allentown Streets Department as to why they do so much redundant street cleaning and within a day found a reasonable solution that would eliminate all the parking havoc caused by the current method. I then presented that solution to the Streets Department and never got a response to my endless follow-up calls. Next I presented a case for a performance audit of current Street Cleaning methods to the City Controller and "surprise surprise" I got no response. The fact of the matter is; that a reasonably priced upgrade to the city's water system would solve MANY PROBLEMS, but the current method that involves two city departments following each other around for countless man hours and requires every citizen to move their car off the streets in a city that is already hard-pressed for parking seems like the cheaper, easier and more logical way to go, right?
@DOUBLE PARKING:
Because some grumpy old man at the Morning Call wrote one of the worst, one-sided, articles about double parking ever (Paul Carpenter: Double-parking plague infects city); you're going to raise the fine? (I see no mention of enforcement, just rising the fine; which will actually accomplish nothing) Now, I admit some people double park in a very inconsiderate manner ... they park in the middle of the street then leave the vehicle sitting, while others, pullover, do a quick 'drop-off' to let a passenger out who may have a heavy item or child/children with them, etc.. But to simply punish EVERYONE is not the answer because it doesn't address the problem.
The REAL problem is; THERE IS NO PLACE TO PARK! This is an ENORMOUS FAILURE on the part of the Allentown Parking Authority. With that said I would like to add; WOW YOU HAVE NERVE! YOU HAVE FAILED AND NOW YOU WANT TO FURTHER PUNISH THE CITIZENS OF ALLENTOWN FOR YOUR FAILURE!?!? I am very very very un-impressed.
There are only and handful of solutions to the city's parking problems and they are clear cut:
1) The Allentown Parking Authority must buy land, build parking lots, and offer free parking to residents to alleviate congestion.
And/Or
2) The City and the Parking Authority need to work together and not allow houses to be converted to apartments in areas with little or no parking. Furthermore they need to convert some of the multi-family buildings back to single homes.
Raising fines to give the 'appearance of action' does NOTHING to actually solve the problem.
@TRUCK RESTRICTION:
THIS LAW IS MORONIC! If a truck is parked on a city street in a manner that obstructs the flow of traffic and is a danger then give it a ticket. But to simply BAN a truck from parking anywhere is stupid! This is clearly something that falls into the "We have To-Many-Laws category" since other laws already address any REAL PROBLEM that could occur from an oversized vehicle being parked on the street. All this law does is punish and inconvenience people who happen to drive a truck. (PERIOD)
@MULTIPLE TICKETS:
Every once in a while you do something that will only help bring attention to the fact that Allentown Parking Authority is out of control. When we have a city full of hard-to-ignore, big-yellow-boots, on every car, truck, SUV, baby stroller and ambulance; people will start to take a good long look at how the APA is run and I can assure you they will not be pleased.
------------------------------------------------
For more information on the Corrupt, Wasteful, Hypocritical, Nuisance that is the APA visit this site about the Allentown Parking Authority
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Protest the Allentown Parking Authority on Wed. Sept. 23, 2009 at 4pm
Come One, Come All! To what may just be the greatest show on earth! The Wednesday September 23, 2009 - Allentown Parking Authority Board Meeting at 4pm! I'll be there (with a few others) to amaze and astound you! It will be a board meeting like none you've witnessed before! Chock-full of News Worthy information the general public WANTS TO KNOW! While it may not be the Jerry Springer Show; Tempers will Flare and that always makes for entertaining news, right?
Where:
"The Circus" AKA - The Allentown Parking Authority
1005 Hamilton Street Allentown PA
When:
Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 4:00pm
Why:
Because it's way overdue
What to bring:
A Camera! You're going to want to watch this over and over again!
BTW, Did you know the Allentown Parking Authority IS a privately owned "FOR PROFIT" business? (Don't believe me? Go ahead; call them up and ask them: 610-437-3366 / http://www.allentownparking.com/contact.php)
I'll be pointing out things like:
Where:
"The Circus" AKA - The Allentown Parking Authority
1005 Hamilton Street Allentown PA
When:
Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 4:00pm
Why:
Because it's way overdue
What to bring:
A Camera! You're going to want to watch this over and over again!
BTW, Did you know the Allentown Parking Authority IS a privately owned "FOR PROFIT" business? (Don't believe me? Go ahead; call them up and ask them: 610-437-3366 / http://www.allentownparking.com/contact.php)
I'll be pointing out things like:
- How it’s a bad thing for the Allentown Parking Authority to boot and/or impound a car used for medical emergencies (because they were obviously too stupid to figure it out on their own)
- How Tamara Weller (the Executive Director) is like an out-of-control manager of a Burger King!
- How spending OVER $53,704.00 for a website is a HUGE F'n WASTE OF MONEY! (and this is just one example)
- How the Allentown Parking Authority should use Public Transportation (What a waste of money for them to buy all those cars when we already pay for buses ... not to mention their carbon footprint)
- How the parking authority should be considered a Public Nuisance (if your Bar or Nightclub needed police assistance as much as they do, you wouldn’t be in business very long)
- How the Allentown Parking Authority rarely provides a service to YOU ... the citizens (demonstrated by the low number parking complaints vs. the large number of parking tickets)
- How the Allentown Parking Authority targets low-income families
- And so much more!
DON'T MISS THIS SHOW!
Where:
"The Circus" AKA - The Allentown Parking Authority
1005 Hamilton Street Allentown PA
When:
Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 4:00pm
PS - For those who find this post after Sept. 23, 2009 ... don't give up! Fight for what is right!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Allentown PA Parking Authority Sucks!
The Allentown PA Parking Authority is a business that targets low-income families for profit (period)
Need Proof they target low income families? Ok... Click Here
How much profit? AT LEAST 5 million dollars annually (but I've seen a report of 19 million recently). Need Proof? Ok... Click Here
If you think they HAVE to give out this many tickets... you're wrong!
A large number of tickets are given out due to "Street Cleaning".
Street Cleaning closes down 25% of Center City parking for several hours 4 days a week in a City that is AWARE OF THE FACT that there are not enough places to park already.
The City claims it "has to" street clean because of regulations from Fed. & State Government with regard to pollutants that enter into the water supply via street drains/gutters so their hands are tied.
HOWEVER! Allentown's water filter system is archaic!
Solution: Take the MILLIONS the Parking Authority makes and re-invest it into replacing the gutters with newer ones! This would eliminate the need for all the redundant street cleaning, solve the parking problem and make more citizens happy and less inconvenienced!
If you agree with the proposed solution above then call this guy at the Allentown Dept of Public Works and rip into him: Richard Young - 610-437-7587
Need Proof they target low income families? Ok... Click Here
How much profit? AT LEAST 5 million dollars annually (but I've seen a report of 19 million recently). Need Proof? Ok... Click Here
If you think they HAVE to give out this many tickets... you're wrong!
A large number of tickets are given out due to "Street Cleaning".
Street Cleaning closes down 25% of Center City parking for several hours 4 days a week in a City that is AWARE OF THE FACT that there are not enough places to park already.
The City claims it "has to" street clean because of regulations from Fed. & State Government with regard to pollutants that enter into the water supply via street drains/gutters so their hands are tied.
HOWEVER! Allentown's water filter system is archaic!
Solution: Take the MILLIONS the Parking Authority makes and re-invest it into replacing the gutters with newer ones! This would eliminate the need for all the redundant street cleaning, solve the parking problem and make more citizens happy and less inconvenienced!
If you agree with the proposed solution above then call this guy at the Allentown Dept of Public Works and rip into him: Richard Young - 610-437-7587
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax (continued - Part 3)
Killing "Pennsylvanians" One Pack at a Time; by Craig Friebolin
I got a cut-and-paste response from the Governor’s Office today and you can see my response below:
"Thank you for your recent correspondence about the 10-cent per pack cigarette tax increase that I included in my budget proposal for the coming year. As you know, Pennsylvania and all other states are feeling the impact of the national recession, and 2009-10 budget represents a momentous challenge to ensure fiscal discipline while making critical invests that grow our economy and protect Pennsylvanians who need help during this economic storm.
The federal government and every state in the U.S. impose some sort of tax on cigarettes,
usually for two reasons. First, cigarette taxes help raise the price of the product, which discourages consumption, especially by kids. Second, cigarette taxes are enacted to fund public programs for the common good, and often the programs that benefit from cigarette tax revenue are directly related to health care initiatives. Here in Pennsylvania, the largest portion of our budget goes toward funding health care, and the increased cigarette tax will help us meet those obligations.
Pennsylvania’s current cigarette tax places it in the middle of all states and Washington, DC with the 21st highest cigarette tax, and less than neighboring states New Jersey, Maryland and New York. Raising the tax rate by 10 cents will increase Pennsylvania’s ranking only marginally, to 19th place.
Inexplicably, Pennsylvania is also the only state in America that does not tax smokeless tobacco – chewing tobacco, cigars and cigarillos. I have proposed taxing those products as a fair, common-sense way to generate needed revenue.
The cigarette tax was first enacted in Pennsylvania in 1935 and it supplies a substantial source of funding for public services provided by the commonwealth. The tax rate has increased nine times over the past 74 years to provide sufficient funding to the General Fund and programs such as a health insurance plan benefiting Pennsylvania children, a fund that helps reduce medical malpractice costs for healthcare providers and a farmland preservation effort.
The proposed cigarette tax increase – the first in five years – and the first ever tax on smokeless tobacco will benefit Pennsylvania by further reducing tobacco use and funding important programs on which many residents rely.
In the long run, reductions in tobacco use will provide public health benefits that will reduce the cost of health care in the public and private sectors, reduce sick leave usage and lengthen the life spans of many Pennsylvania children and adults.
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion on this issue."
My Responce:
What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support? You have a 75% failure rate on the only one I could find and it doesn't cost NEARLY $600,000,000+ a year to run.
My point is ... Use tax money from the general population to support programs for the general population. Do not single out one group (smokers) to fund projects that are not specifically related to that group (smokers).
So help me god if you tell me the money goes to "Healthcare" assuming that broad definition will be satisfactory; you will have severely insulted my intelligence. Your current logic is like saying you're going to tax black people just for being black; give the money to the Klu Klux Clan; then say the tax is used to support "Diversity Programs". You have no REAL programs in place to reduce the amount of smokers in PA and you use smokers as a piggybank to fund projects that sound vaguely related but aren't related AT ALL.
So here's the deal... I propose you fund a Nicotine Replacement program that subsidizes the cost of Nicotine Patches, etc. and pass a law that requires any Cigarette/Tobacco retailer to carry, stock and prominently display the low-cost subsidized Nicotine Replacement items. Because your current "Give us your money and we'll try to fix you AFTER you get sick if there's any money left over" model is stupid!
Or am I missing a good answer to the question: "What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support?"
I got a cut-and-paste response from the Governor’s Office today and you can see my response below:
"Thank you for your recent correspondence about the 10-cent per pack cigarette tax increase that I included in my budget proposal for the coming year. As you know, Pennsylvania and all other states are feeling the impact of the national recession, and 2009-10 budget represents a momentous challenge to ensure fiscal discipline while making critical invests that grow our economy and protect Pennsylvanians who need help during this economic storm.
The federal government and every state in the U.S. impose some sort of tax on cigarettes,
usually for two reasons. First, cigarette taxes help raise the price of the product, which discourages consumption, especially by kids. Second, cigarette taxes are enacted to fund public programs for the common good, and often the programs that benefit from cigarette tax revenue are directly related to health care initiatives. Here in Pennsylvania, the largest portion of our budget goes toward funding health care, and the increased cigarette tax will help us meet those obligations.
Pennsylvania’s current cigarette tax places it in the middle of all states and Washington, DC with the 21st highest cigarette tax, and less than neighboring states New Jersey, Maryland and New York. Raising the tax rate by 10 cents will increase Pennsylvania’s ranking only marginally, to 19th place.
Inexplicably, Pennsylvania is also the only state in America that does not tax smokeless tobacco – chewing tobacco, cigars and cigarillos. I have proposed taxing those products as a fair, common-sense way to generate needed revenue.
The cigarette tax was first enacted in Pennsylvania in 1935 and it supplies a substantial source of funding for public services provided by the commonwealth. The tax rate has increased nine times over the past 74 years to provide sufficient funding to the General Fund and programs such as a health insurance plan benefiting Pennsylvania children, a fund that helps reduce medical malpractice costs for healthcare providers and a farmland preservation effort.
The proposed cigarette tax increase – the first in five years – and the first ever tax on smokeless tobacco will benefit Pennsylvania by further reducing tobacco use and funding important programs on which many residents rely.
In the long run, reductions in tobacco use will provide public health benefits that will reduce the cost of health care in the public and private sectors, reduce sick leave usage and lengthen the life spans of many Pennsylvania children and adults.
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion on this issue."
My Responce:
What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support? You have a 75% failure rate on the only one I could find and it doesn't cost NEARLY $600,000,000+ a year to run.
My point is ... Use tax money from the general population to support programs for the general population. Do not single out one group (smokers) to fund projects that are not specifically related to that group (smokers).
So help me god if you tell me the money goes to "Healthcare" assuming that broad definition will be satisfactory; you will have severely insulted my intelligence. Your current logic is like saying you're going to tax black people just for being black; give the money to the Klu Klux Clan; then say the tax is used to support "Diversity Programs". You have no REAL programs in place to reduce the amount of smokers in PA and you use smokers as a piggybank to fund projects that sound vaguely related but aren't related AT ALL.
So here's the deal... I propose you fund a Nicotine Replacement program that subsidizes the cost of Nicotine Patches, etc. and pass a law that requires any Cigarette/Tobacco retailer to carry, stock and prominently display the low-cost subsidized Nicotine Replacement items. Because your current "Give us your money and we'll try to fix you AFTER you get sick if there's any money left over" model is stupid!
Or am I missing a good answer to the question: "What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support?"
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Thank You for Calling PA Governor Ed Rendell's Office … Now Go F#*K Yourself
How Edward G. Rendell Personally Wastes Your Time; by Craig Friebolin
So I decide to call the Governor and show him the error of his ways with regard to the Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax (Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office: (717) 787-2500) A woman answers the phone with a bad attitude and a long-story-short I state my case to the woman and I’m told that “my comment will be passed on”. I follow up by asking “will someone be calling me back to discuss this further?” and I’m once again told “my comment will be passed on”. When the call is over I feel like I was just brushed off as being insignificant. I stew over it for a minute or two and get increasingly angry and decide to call back with the intent of insisting that I speak to someone. Another woman with a bad-attitude answers the phone, I state my case again, and again I’m told “my comment will be passed on”. And once again I ask “will someone be calling me back?” to which she replies “What do you mean?” …. Oooooh … now I’m just mad. I take a moment to explain the difficult question of “will someone be calling me back?” to the confused young woman with the chip on her shoulder and she tells me I need to put my comments in writing. “And THEN someone will contact me back?” I ask. I hear her sigh in frustration at my question and now I’m really getting irritated … “I don’t want to waste my time putting it in writing if it’s not going to go anywhere because I have other s*#t to do” once I said that she seemed almost excited to say “we don’t tolerate that kind of language” and she hung up on me because she’s not smart enough to answer simple questions and obviously not smart enough to know I’ll be calling right back … which I did … and the conversation continued like so; “Why did you hang up on me?!” … “Because we don’t tolora… ::click click click ring :::” and I realize I’m being transferred. A man answers the phone and I fumble through saying something to the effect of “Where am I? I think I was transferred but I’m not sure why … do you do something with the cigarette tax?” he says “I can help you” and for the third time now I state my case but this time emphasizing that I would like to speak to someone about the matter. The reasonable man gives me honest answers “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I explain to the man that this is my third time calling and the first 2 women I spoke to told me my comment would be passed on. He responds with silence. “So what you’re telling me is those 2 phone calls were a complete waste of time” he responds in an empathetic tone, “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I’m taking the hint so I too am now speaking in an empathetic but confused manor “Do you have a pen? Or a computer? Why not just write what I’m saying down?” he tells me “honestly … it’s what the Governor wants. He’s the chief and we’re just the little Indians”.
So here it is Eddy … all written down … it took about 7 hours to get all my facts straight and type this up for you … and now that I’m this invested I’m not letting it go. I didn’t get paid for this time and as I stated to your office earlier “I have other s**t to do” so hopefully your office will correct this common sense mistake and not make any more so I don’t have to put my life on hold to spell them out for you because you refuse to empower your staff with a God damn pen. Maybe you could gouge the smokers of Pennsylvania a bit more to donate some of its $613,000,000.00 in annual tax revenue to buy them computers?
So I decide to call the Governor and show him the error of his ways with regard to the Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax (Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office: (717) 787-2500) A woman answers the phone with a bad attitude and a long-story-short I state my case to the woman and I’m told that “my comment will be passed on”. I follow up by asking “will someone be calling me back to discuss this further?” and I’m once again told “my comment will be passed on”. When the call is over I feel like I was just brushed off as being insignificant. I stew over it for a minute or two and get increasingly angry and decide to call back with the intent of insisting that I speak to someone. Another woman with a bad-attitude answers the phone, I state my case again, and again I’m told “my comment will be passed on”. And once again I ask “will someone be calling me back?” to which she replies “What do you mean?” …. Oooooh … now I’m just mad. I take a moment to explain the difficult question of “will someone be calling me back?” to the confused young woman with the chip on her shoulder and she tells me I need to put my comments in writing. “And THEN someone will contact me back?” I ask. I hear her sigh in frustration at my question and now I’m really getting irritated … “I don’t want to waste my time putting it in writing if it’s not going to go anywhere because I have other s*#t to do” once I said that she seemed almost excited to say “we don’t tolerate that kind of language” and she hung up on me because she’s not smart enough to answer simple questions and obviously not smart enough to know I’ll be calling right back … which I did … and the conversation continued like so; “Why did you hang up on me?!” … “Because we don’t tolora… ::click click click ring :::” and I realize I’m being transferred. A man answers the phone and I fumble through saying something to the effect of “Where am I? I think I was transferred but I’m not sure why … do you do something with the cigarette tax?” he says “I can help you” and for the third time now I state my case but this time emphasizing that I would like to speak to someone about the matter. The reasonable man gives me honest answers “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I explain to the man that this is my third time calling and the first 2 women I spoke to told me my comment would be passed on. He responds with silence. “So what you’re telling me is those 2 phone calls were a complete waste of time” he responds in an empathetic tone, “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I’m taking the hint so I too am now speaking in an empathetic but confused manor “Do you have a pen? Or a computer? Why not just write what I’m saying down?” he tells me “honestly … it’s what the Governor wants. He’s the chief and we’re just the little Indians”.
So here it is Eddy … all written down … it took about 7 hours to get all my facts straight and type this up for you … and now that I’m this invested I’m not letting it go. I didn’t get paid for this time and as I stated to your office earlier “I have other s**t to do” so hopefully your office will correct this common sense mistake and not make any more so I don’t have to put my life on hold to spell them out for you because you refuse to empower your staff with a God damn pen. Maybe you could gouge the smokers of Pennsylvania a bit more to donate some of its $613,000,000.00 in annual tax revenue to buy them computers?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
