Friday, May 20, 2016

Bazzo Says: Standing up for your rights

Bazzo Says:


I really and truly believe this new bag surcharge in New York City is going to reach the state and county after this year’s election because I have yet to find a bad idea combined with a money grab that Democrats do not fall in love with.

If you can remember, and it was not that long ago, the naked greed by the state legislature to get its hands on those nickel deposits that went unclaimed, you are going to see it again with this nickel on plastic and paper (the last hardly ever mentioned) bags. The reason they do not mention paper is that it goes against the template of seeing bags on trees and wires and littering sewer drains. 
Remembering this too like the nickel deposits is in the name of the environmentthis new catch-all to pick your pockets.  I am beginning to come around to the thinking that "green" is the new "red" (meaning communist). 

So a couple of facts I forgot to mention last week. You must wash out the reusable bags after each use. This uses more water and energy than it takes to make a bundle of plastic bags.  According to a recent study in San Francisco on the after math of their bag law, 97 percent of reusable bag users do not wash them so you have now an additional 16-plus deaths and/or assorted illnesses each year linked to the rise in germ-infested reusable bags. At the time of the San Francisco law, plastic bags made up only 0.6 percent of litter. Most people, like yours truly, reuse the bags for household garbage and cat litter. 

I would suggest this election season that you find out where your chosen candidate stands on this issue. Are they going to make this bag surcharge a tax and grab some more nickels, or are they going to either sponsor or sign on to a bill forbidding this money grab. You have right to know if your chosen candidate is going to nickel you to death. Do not give them a pass  

I am still trying to get my arms around this government overreach concerning affordable housing. I still have not found its constitutional right to exercise power over local, county and state zoning codes. The reason why there is a 10th amendment is because our founders understood (and this was when there were only 13 stars) that you could not have a top down government with one-size-fits-all laws.

Remember the 10th amendment states that any powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states. That is why education, marriage, and housing are not mentioned. Each state had different needs and priorities. Even within states there were different priorities. That is why you had a backlash years ago over Regent test questions.  There were questions where urban dwellers had no idea what they were being asked.

The same is true for zoning. Each municipality had the right to dictate the type of housing that fit that area. You have to figure in logistics, and infrastructure. Take the areas where this column reaches: Because of taxes, school, county and local, property ownership is more expensive.  Therefore businesses have to charge more than neighboring areas for goods and services.  Also car ownership is almost a necessity. The infrastructure cannot accommodate multi-storied, meaning four-, five-, or six-story high buildings.


So, you have a federal government saying because poor people cannot afford to live in more affluent communities, it is discrimination. To them, it is not fair that some people can afford to live in our area and others cannot.  Income inequity equals discrimination. You see, according to Democrats, we must have equal outcome regardless of the choices we make in life. If the outcome is out of balance, it must be some form of discrimination. Yet, all our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence try to guarantee is equal opportunity. That was the premise of the amendments and laws against discriminations based on race, sex, religion and now sexual orientation. It was not that long ago, actually in my lifetime, that same-sex couples could be barred from renting an apartment, or even gathering in a bar and dancing together. These were real discriminations, not what passes for discrimination now. 

Now you have the federal government demanding that states, counties and towns create housing so that poor people can live in affluent communities. Yet to make the housing affordable, how do you make the business of living affordable?  Are we now going to be forced to make the ownership of cars, the buying of gas, the maintenance of said auto, and the purchases of electricity, groceries and so forth subsidized for these others who are barely making ends meet now? After all, extrapolating from the government argument, it must be discrimination that you can afford a car, they cannot, because in your community a car is a must.

The federal government is threatening law suits, fines and loss of funding if these affected areas do not comply with this unconstitutional dictate. In the private sector this would be called blackmail.  It would be called unlawful coercion.  
So to those who wish to sign away their rights in the name of funding or intent, look at the consequences of what you are willing to give up: Your freedom of association; your freedom of the type of lots you wish your community to have.  More important is the principal that the federal government is the creation of the states and only gets it power from the consent of the statesa bottom up government. This basic principal that separates us form the rest of the world. It is neither racist nor discriminatory to defend this. 

This is what I say. What say you?
Guest: Political Commentators Darren Rigger and
Bryan Fumigalli discuss the recent New York Corruption scandals
Wednesday 9:30 p.m.
Peeksakill:    channel 15
Yorktown: channel 74
May 25

1)  Check Out

2) Check Out Yorktown News:
3) Check Out The Somers Record:

4)  Check Out Mahopac News:

5) Check Out North Salem News: 





CONTACT ME @: (it is atom (underscore) taxi)
For immediate reply:



Bazzo  05/20/16

No comments: