Sen. Benjamin Downing wants to use Mass children as guinea pigs

Not to mention RBGH in milk (6.00 / 1)

RBGH, a genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone, is still allowed in American milk supplies.  While you can purchase milk without it (it will be clearly labeled), I've noticed that most store brand milk is not labeled free of this toxin.  There are concerns of this chemical causing cancer; I wonder if it has anything to do with the sudden increase in obesity in our society, especially children.  Farmers began using this product in 1994.  It seems to me, obesity was not a problem until most recently. Sure video games, no gym, all of those things don't help, but I think they should should do a study to see if this chemical is linked to obesity.  

I would be happy to see most plastics banned.  Glass was a beautiful way to contain food.  


"Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-President Lincoln

---

by: liveandletlive @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:17:47 PM CST

Perhaps Senator Downing drinks his RGBH straight (6.00 / 2)

Starts every morning with a eight fresh ounces.

The point is that his assertion that 350 jobs in his district are at risk as a result of this legislation which only affects baby bottles and spill-proof cups sold in Massachusetts sounds extremely suspect, and his statement about the FDA is fatuous on its face since they reported "some concern" about the effects of this chemical on very young children -- precisely the targets of this bill -- just two months ago.

Canada has banned the chemical as a toxin and there is a mountain of evidence against it, why should we allow it to be fed to our youngest residents with the milk they drink, especially considering there are good alternatives.

The Governor should be supported with this legislation, not attacked by the Honorary Chair of the Mass College Democrats who has never worked a day in his life in the chemical industry, medical fields, or area of child health.  

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:29:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree, and who knows (0.00 / 0)

maybe the Governor is also saving the lives of those 350 workers who are handling and breathing in fumes from this product.  I think it is high time we stop experimenting with toxins on the public.  

When I was a teenager, I was inside our apartment during the two days it took to pump UFFI into the walls.  The fumes were so obnoxious; I couldn't breath.  The second night, I was crying and choking so my mother called the landlord to see if she should have concerns about the fumes. The landlord said no, it's perfectly safe, open a window. Yup.  

"Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-President Lincoln

---

by: liveandletlive @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:56:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Since we cannot read SHNS links.... (0.00 / 0)

I have to assume that their one word quote of Sen. Downing is exactly that.... a one word quote.

What I can see is that your quote from the FDA site leaves off the fact that they are already taking limited action and that they are indeed 'studying' the situation before making any broad pronouncements.

I would bet a six pack of your choice that the entirety of Sen. Downing's conversation would reveal that he agrees with the FDA's current stance and that his opinion of the Guv's actions are based upon what he perceives as a bit of redundant grandstanding.

I know Ben personally and politically. I can assure you that he is not craven and is one of the most environmentally aware people on Beacon Hill. Your assessment of him based upon one word is "unfortunate."

P.S. I work in the natural foods biz and know more about the BPA stuff than I care to admit. I suspect that the FDA will come out strongly against it, eventually. However, there is absolutely nothing in that one word that makes me think that Ben is making guinea pigs out of our kids. Comparing this one word to the defense of Big Tobacco is a non-sequitur, IMHO.

Flame away.

---

by: GregR @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:35:38 PM CST

Here is the full SHNS item (0.00 / 0)

If Senator Downing reconsiders his position and supports the legislation my characterization will no longer be apropos. In the meantime, the headline is exactly what he wants to do: permit this chemical to be fed to our youngest children while the FDA studies the matter.

It is a completely craven position because it puts the chemical industry ahead of the health of very young children. The tobacco comparison frames the issue very nicely, in my opinion, but perhaps you are right: this issue might be even worse than tobacco because there at least the users can decide for themselves if they want to consume. Here the choice is made for the children.

PATRICK SEEKS LIMITED BAN ON BPA IN BABY BOTTLES
Gov. Deval Patrick on Tuesday directed the Department of Public Health to take steps toward a limited ban on BPA in baby bottles and spill-proof cups, an announcement that could also affect jobs in the Bay State plastics industry.  In August 2009, the department issued a public health advisory for consumers concerning bisphenol A (BPA), which is present in baby products, including baby bottles and some infant formula. A number of studies in laboratory animals had raised concerns about potential health effects during fetal development and among nursing or formula-fed children who may be exposed to BPA, the department said at the time, citing effects such as changes in the infant's developing nervous system, such as thyroid function and brain growth; changes in behavioral development, such as hyperactivity; and changes in the normal development of the prostate gland.  "We are taking this action as a precaution to protect vulnerable children in the light of evidence about potential dangers of BPA," Patrick said in a statement.  "I have asked DPH to begin the regulatory process to implement a ban on some products containing BPA, and I hope that all interested citizens engage in this process."  BPA is used as a liner in some food and beverage cans to prevent spoilage, according to the department, and is used in a variety of other consumer products to enhance the structural integrity of plastic containers. Alternatives to plastic containers that have BPA as a component are available, and some are made by the same companies that produce products containing BPA.  Sen. Benjamin Downing said it was "unfortunate" that Patrick had intervened, noting up to 350 plastics industry jobs in his district could be at risk and suggesting that the governor should have waited for the Food and Drug Administration to check in on Bisphenol A.  "Just about everybody would say the FDC is the leading authority on things like this," said Downing, who noted efforts in neighboring New York and Vermont to recruit Bay State plastics makers.   The state Public Health Council will consider a draft BPA regulation at its May meeting, with Patrick aides predicting final passage of the regulation while highlighting an "open public comment process involving all interested parties."  Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the nation's first ban on BPA last May, according to Patrick's office, with the law applying only to new bottles and cups intended for children from birth to age 3.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:54:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the full piece. (0.00 / 0)

My position remains that the FDA supports the removal of BPA from all infant and toddler products, and I am quite sure that Ben supports the FDA's position.

I am serious about the beer. If a reasonable bill comes forward and Downing votes against it, I will owe you a six pack.

SHNS obviously called the guy who has SABIC Plastics (formerly GE Plastics) in his district hoping to find a contrary opinion. My guess is that they only reported a tiny part of that opinion.  

---

by: GregR @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:07:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Done! (0.00 / 0)

And not only that, if Senator Downing changes his position on this legislation -- or explains that he has supported it all along, and was misinterpreted by the SHNS or whatever -- not only will I buy you a six pack, I will buy one for Senator Downing as well and write a front-page piece about it. I'd be delighted.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:28:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"I will buy one for Senator Downing as well" (0.00 / 0)

Probably illegal under the new ethics law.  ;-)

---

by: David @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:32:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are right (0.00 / 0)

I'd probably have to incorporate as a chemical company to do it legally. ;-)

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:35:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can just use (0.00 / 0)

BMG PAC to pay for it.

---

by: DCA-BOS @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:49:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I prefer Sam Adams Boston Lager (0.00 / 0)

Senator Downing's comment makes his position on this issue quite clear: he thinks the chemical industry is more important than the health of the youngest children in Massachusetts. He does not support the Governor's bill to ban BPA in infant bottles and spill-proof cups.

He has backed away from his assertion that the measure will put 350 jobs at risk.

In fact, in some ways his position is even more outrageous now than it was yesterday, since he has conceded that jobs are not directly at risk. That should make it even easier for him to support the legislation.

But I remain concerned that in the absence of a clear ruling and statement from FDA that other states won't make this a priority and will use the Governor's actions to lure away employers.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:09:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bingo! (5.00 / 1)

This sentence in the article makes the Senator's position untenable:

Alternatives to plastic containers that have BPA as a component are available, and some are made by the same companies that produce products containing BPA.

There is apparently nothing magical about BPAs, and some very well-known products switched to BPA-free plastics without much, if any impact on jobs.

That said, I do find the "guinea pig" framing excessive. That kind of overwrought hyperbole is a major reason I stopped reading the Huffington Post. Some version of the first sentence in your second paragraph above would make a more accurate title. How about "Sen. Downing puts chemical industry ahead of health of children?"  

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 05:52:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

BPA in in plastics are easy to avoid (5.00 / 1)

BPA in cans is not. They do no have a good alternative yet.

---

by: GregR @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 05:57:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Is this one of those "lost ancient knowledge" things - (6.00 / 3)

or have cans always had plastic liners?

Napoleon's prize-winner doesn't seem to have used plastic.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:08:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cans have had different liners over the years. (0.00 / 0)

Acidic foods used to have enamels or just be "uncannable."

The reason you see tomato sauces in glass jars at the store is not the marketing power of glass, but rather the fact that they get a longer shelf life.

I have been encouraging the food processors I deal with in my work to switch to other containers for the past two years. It's all about money.  

---

by: GregR @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:34:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Problem is: he supports the ongoing real-world trial (6.00 / 2)

That allows BPA to be pumped into Massachusetts children through their baby bottles and sippy cups, so we can all observe the interesting results.

As I wrote below in my response to the esteemed Senator: why should the very youngest Massachusetts children have to use their bodies to prove that BPA is safe, given the considerable scientific evidence that it may not be safe for them. Canada, after all, has banned the substance nationwide in baby bottles as a toxin.

Let Sabic prove that it is safe for infants.

Sadly, I think the "guinea pig" frame is very accurate.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:36:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Greg, that's more than one word (0.00 / 0)

The 350 jobs claim is more than one word. And a very unfortunate one.

As a constituent of Ben's, I'm disappointed by his comments. You're right, he is usually better than this on environmental issues. He's done a lot to promote wind energy, for example. That doesn't mean he's always right.

The evidence about BPA is strong enough to warrant the Governor's very limited proposed ban. What kind of smoking gun are you waiting for? Studies on other primates have made it clear that the EPA's allowed dose of BPA is actually quite dangerous.  How many people have to die before it's ok to ban it? How many have to be brain damaged?

---

by: PatrickLong @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:16:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think this article is putting words... (0.00 / 0)

.. in Ben's mouth.

I just sent him an email asking him to clarify. I suspect that his position is not quite what this article makes it out to be. We'll see.

---

by: GregR @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:23:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huge news! (0.00 / 0)

Can someone -- anyone -- tell us which plastic cups are being made in Massachusetts?

I'd like to buy locally, and I'm shocked that we still manufacture this kind of product here. Everything I see is made in China.

So where's the plant? What do they make?

This is exciting!

---

by: NoPolitician @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:49:43 PM CST

Well, 350 people are apparently making sippy cups for MA children (0.00 / 0)

In Berkshire. Hampshire and Franklin, according to Senator Downing. There must be a much larger Massachusetts chemical industry than previously suspected.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 21:56:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They don't make the cups. (0.00 / 0)

However, SABIC makes the raw plastic for many products and also makes the resins that can be included in the epoxy liners of metal cans. (As I said, I know way too much about this stuff.)

There is a huge quandry in the food world because no one has invented a can liner that can handle acidic food without it including an epoxy. Glass is the obvious answer, but it is several times more expensive and it is not as durable in the shipping process.

Also, food service tends to use Lexan and other plastic containers that can leech BPA if hot food is stored in them or they are microwaved.

Eventually it seems likely that BPA containing food containers will be phased out, but the technology is not quite there yet.

(Eden Foods offers lots of BPA free canned goods for about double what you can buy most conventional brands. But even their tomato cans have some. Sigh.)

---

by: GregR @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:20:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right, but that is not what Senator Downing said (0.00 / 0)

He said that banning BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups sold in Massachusetts could put "up to 350 plastics industry jobs in his district" at risk, according to SHNS.

I suspect that is an absurd statement in all likelihood, but maybe GE has more people making constituent ingredients for Massachusetts baby bottles and sippy cups than we all thought.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 22:32:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Again, I don't think he said "that." (0.00 / 0)

I doubt the 350 jobs comment was solely about sippy cups.

---

by: GregR @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:09:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not GE (0.00 / 0)

I agree his position is untenable, but since GE sold its plastics division to SABIC a few years ago, there have been periodic concerns that SABIC might leave Pittsfield. For instance, last Septemeber, the Berkshire Eagle reported that

Following several months of "consideration and analysis,"Sabic Innovative Plastics has decided to keep its world headquarters where it is on Plastics Avenue, according to Sabic spokeswoman Jodi Kennedy.

That's where the 350 jobs are, and SABIC is one of the largest employers, if not the largest, in Downing's district.  

---

by: Jarstar @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:19:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pretty sure it's not the largest (0.00 / 0)

Colleges and hospitals tend to employ a lot. So do town governments and the court system, but I assume we're talking private employers.

Off the top of my head, those would be Williams and Simon's Rock if we limit it to private colleges. Fairview Hospital and Berkshire Health Systems. BHS has so many hospitals and nursing homes it's gotta be bigger. Fairview may be part of BHS now, not sure.

Dunno how many employees Iredale Mineral Cosmetics or Berkshire Bank have, but at least competitive w/ Sabic. I'm sure I could think of more with time.

The bigger question being, of course, how we replace those jobs at Sabic if they're lost.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:43:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A lot of plastic (0.00 / 0)

There are a lot of plastic manufacturers in MA. (Am I the only one who remembers the billboard on Rte. 2 that said "Lunenburg - America's Pioneer Plastic City?")
Here's a list for Eastern MA
Here's a list for Western MA
The lists include manufacturers outside MA that serve the state, but there are a lot within it.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:00:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And of course, I meant Leominster (0.00 / 0)

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:01:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Leominster has a plastics museum. (0.00 / 0)

Or hall of fame... or something like that.

---

by: GregR @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:10:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mr. McGuire: I want to say... (6.00 / 2)

...one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Benjamin: Just how do you mean that, sir?


"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:12:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarification & Response (6.00 / 3)

Waiting for my new BMG password, which I understand they need to manually email to me. If you get a chance to post before I can post this, here is my response ... if you have any concerns, email me back

To Bob & Co ... sorry for the delay in my response/clarification ... I recently changed computers and couldn't find my BMG password

When I was advised of the Governor's BPA announcement I spoke inarticulately  about my feelings on it. I admit to being particularly sensitive to the issue of employment and jobs, but I also recognize my comments didn't address the multifaceted nature of this issue and the importance of environmental health and workplace safety.  It may have seemed as if those weren't personal priorities or issues I took seriously, which is unfortunate and is not the case.

My comments about jobs were not meant to imply that the decision would lead to the elimination of jobs, automatically. Rather, without a clear federal statement on BPA, I believe that some states will use regulatory proceedings of other states to try and recruit/lure companies into their borders. I admit I may be keenly aware of this potential since my district borders 3 states, one of which (New York) has been particularly aggressive in their recruitment of Mass. firms, especially those in plastics.  With a varying state regulatory environment we can't achieve, as successfully as we could with clear national guidance, goals we all agree on: shifting to safer alternatives, promoting environmental health & work place safety, and creating jobs.

I believe the Governor deserves credit for prioritizing the health & safety of children. This is a priority I share with him. But I remain concerned that in the absence of a clear ruling and statement from FDA that other states won't make this a priority and will use the Governor's actions to lure away employers (even those whose operations may not be specifically effected by  this regulatory process or others). I hope this clarifies my comments and makes clear that I don't want to use children in Massachusetts, or anywhere else for that matter, as "guinea pigs."

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my remarks.

---

by: Ben @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:10:27 AM CST

Question (0.00 / 0)

Why can't you work with the Governor to come up with a solution that supports the environmental protections in the ban but also addresses the issue of job losses to other states? What about a tax credit for companies that manufacture safer alternatives to BPA? A big enough tax credit would be more valuable to manufacturers than any lost income from not being able to sell baby bottles or spill-proof cups here. It would also go further to promote the environmental benefits of the ban by incentivizing the production of better alternatives by all BPA manufacturers, not just the ones whose plastics are used in baby bottle and spill proof cups.

And in fact, since the ban applies to the sale of these products rather than their manufacture, manufacturers wouldn't really gain anything by moving out of state. They might still want to if they feel threatened, but the average CEO is probably smart enough to act based on his/her business interests intead of emotions if leaders in state govt make a point to meet with CEOs and address their concerns.

P.S. One of the editors should delete my last comment since it was just a posting of Ben's response, which he posted himself 2 minutes later.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:22:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Tax credits are for rich Republicans (6.00 / 1)

Patrick, your heart is in the right place, but your idea stinks, quite frankly. I say this to you as a friend, because I know we share the same values.

This state is in the midst of a fiscal crisis, and we need more revenue, not less, to create jobs. State workers are being let go or furloughed. Contracts are shrinking in size (such as for human services), hurting not just those who benefit from state programs, but those who deliver them as well.

Let's find creative ways to increase state revenues, not to decrease them. Such as, for example, extending the sales tax to services. Massachusetts is the ONLY state that taxes no services of any kind.

Also, we need to be competitive with other states in terms of our tax rates. Our income and sales tax rates are sub-par, and really need to go up.

Our Senator, who is under fire here, is well versed in these issues, and understands the need to increase revenues. Which is a good thing, since he's the co-chair of the legislature's revenue committee!

As you mentioned in an earlier comment of yours, Berkshire County has no shortage of educational and healthcare related jobs. That's true everywhere in the state. And the nice thing about those jobs is they can't be farmed out.  

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:32:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm just throwing out ideas (0.00 / 0)

I'm looking for ways to offset any disadvantages of the ban; I'm not wedded to the idea of a tax credit.

Although we could offset it by eliminating other tax credits that don't do what they're supposed to. The film tax credit, for example.

Or better yet, take advantage of the opportunity to overhaul our tax code entirely. We should be using income, estate, and capital gains taxes, which don't create the same disincentive to do business that sales taxes do. We also need to expand the sales tax to soda and candy, and raise sin taxes. Alcohol has adverse effects on society that furniture doesn't, and so should be taxed at a higher rate.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:51:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's almost redundant (6.00 / 2)

...tax credits that don't do what they're supposed to...

that is.

You mention the movie tax credit, which I agree is a particularly bad idea. Yet, the film industry in Massachusetts is booming. Is it the tax credit? Probably not, since I think something like 43 other states have a similar credit. Yet, maybe NOT having it would put us at a disadvantage. Still, the question is whether the lost revenue from the tax credits is made up through gained (presumably taxable) economic activity. My guess is not, though I haven't seen a study.

I have, however, seen many economic and empirical studies on this general issue (tax holidays, credits, etc.) for things like sports stadiums, new factories, and the like. Almost universally, they show that the promised net benefits are not delivered. A topic for another time.

Also, I question your premise that sales taxes are a disincentive to business. At the margin, they may be a slight disincentive to consumption, but I would be willing to bet that such an impact is far outweighed by the benefits we get from increased state spending in local communities.

As an example, I went skiing at Jiminy Peak this week. It was wonderful, I will have to say! I paid $54 for my lift ticket. Do you think that it I had to pay an extra $3 in sales tax that I would have stayed home? Or driven an extra hour north into Vermont? I don't think so.

You had mentioned Ben's support for windpower. Not everyone thinks that's such a great idea, but I do. One of the thrills of skiing at Jiminy is getting off the ski lift and being eye-level with the blades of their wind turbine. It's really a beautiful piece of sculpture in motion.  

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 15:29:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

tax credits (0.00 / 0)

Do you happen to have links for any of those studies? I'd like to read them sometime. My sense is that you're right though. Tax credits for one person mean the rest of us have to pay more taxes or lose services. So if you're giving tax credits to someone out of state and raising taxes on someone in state, what happens? You create jobs in other states and lose them at home.

But I'm not proposing the environmentally friendly plastics credits as primarily a job creation factor. It's mainly an incentive for creating better products, and I don't see why it would fail at that.

The disincentive sales taxes create for consumption was enough to throw the legislature's revenue estimates way off when they didn't factor it into their projections. But remember, I'm comparing against progressive taxes. Compared to losing services, sales taxes aren't so bad. Most of the research that's been done suggests that govt spending has a bigger multiplier effect than tax cuts, at least if you're anywhere near the tax and spending levels in the US, so if you can't run a deficit during the recession, the smart thing is to keep services level and raise taxes.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 22:34:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

P.S. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not as confident as you re: educational jobs. They could start doing more distance education, for example.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:52:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point, though limited (0.00 / 0)

Yes, and students could choose to go to Dartmouth instead of Williams, or Middlebury instead of Simons-Rock, etc.

Yet, BCC and MCLA attract mostly local (or at least in-state) people, and there is a vibrant intern program at BMC in Pittsfield. There are some things that don't suit themselves to distance learning, and not everyone prefers it, obviously.

Also, there's a lot more to education than higher ed. Pre-college students can certainly go out of state for private schools, if they can afford it or get scholarships, though I doubt that taxes have much to do with that sort of decision. And, think about the number of jobs our school districts provide.

Similarly with healthcare. You can't outsource nursing home care, for example. Unless there is a shortage of beds, or programs are so bad that people will consider moving out of state.

Anyway, all of this is a bit off topic. I just worry that this whole discussion reveals our prejudice, as a society, to preserving "industrial" jobs as somehow being more desirable that service jobs. The trend toward a service economy has been underway for decades, and offers one more reason we need to tax services, since our tax base for goods is eroding and becoming more regressive.  

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 15:13:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re: Education (0.00 / 0)

I made a point to exclude public sector employers from my analysis because that seems to be the fashionable way to do it. And the majority of educational jobs below the college level are in public schools. But yes, public schools are major employers in the district as well. A lot of school districts would have employment numbers competitive with Sabic.

You make a strong case for taxing services assuming that we're going to rely on sales taxes, which are going to be regressive no matter what you tax, unless you limit them to yachts and Bentleys. In the short term, I encourage Ben to vote in favor of taxing services. In the long run, we all need to recognize that we're just propping up a bad system and should levy more progressive taxes.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 15:31:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Patrick, I absolutely agree with you (0.00 / 0)

What I am suggesting is an improvement to the patchwork quilt that is our tax "system" (there's nothing systematic about it!).

What is needed is a complete overhaul. Unfortunately, in the "real" world, we can only hope to effect Pareto improvements, not Pareto optimality.

To translate that from economist jargon (Pareto was a 19th-century economist); we all wish for perfection. Pareto optimality was defined as being the state of the world in which you could make no changes that would make someone better off without making someone else worse off.

If we are in an imperfect world, by that standard (and guess where we are!), then we should be able to find ways to make changes that make everyone better off.

Point is, it's highly unlikely we will ever get to start from scratch (nor is that necessarily a good idea), so we need to look for improvements at the margin that benefit everyone (or at least nearly everyone).

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:32:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

income tax (0.00 / 0)

There have been quite a few legislative proposals for a constitutional amendment allowing a progressive income tax which had decent levels of support. But when we have a Senate President who is hellbent on using regressive taxes and wields an effective veto over the process, of course we're not going to get a progressive income tax.

And as far as I know, progressive estate or cap gains taxes wouldn't take a Constitutional amendment, so that would be even easier but for the whole unelected person with a veto issue.  

---

by: PatrickLong @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 22:39:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

6 6s for these two sentences my friend (0.00 / 0)

I just worry that this whole discussion reveals our prejudice, as a society, to preserving "industrial" jobs as somehow being more desirable that service jobs. The trend toward a service economy has been underway for decades, and offers one more reason we need to tax services, since our tax base for goods is eroding and becoming more regressive.  

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 16:25:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Judy, thanks for your support (0.00 / 0)

And, for overlooking my typo. Obviously, I meant to type "than service jobs."

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:36:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your response, you are better than this! (6.00 / 1)

As the comments above indicate, BMG is full of your supporters. You have already cost Greg a six pack, sadly.

I'd love to support you here too. Unfortunately, your position is exactly to use the youngest members of the Commonwealth -- newborn infants -- as guinea pigs for a substance that even the FDA -- the very standard you demanded -- in January said raises concern. You want to test this chemical on them even though there is substantial scientific evidence that it is harmful to them. Man up and admit that that is what you are doing.

Why should the children of Massachusetts have to put their bodies at risk to prove that BPA is safe or, worse, prove that it is harmful by suffering endocrine or other problems. Let Sabic prove that BPA is safe before it is mixed into baby bottles.

Canada has banned this substance as a toxin but you want to feed it to our children with their milk.

Governor Patrick's suggestion is exactly the right one: you should support the Governor's legislation; drop the nonsensical claims that this measure puts Massachusetts jobs at risk (which you have partly, but not completely done); and separately incentivize Massachusetts chemical companies to manufacture safer alternatives to BPA. Then Greg and I will toast you with the six pack I'll buy for him.  

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:29:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As far as SABIC is concerned (6.00 / 1)

Adult content?!  Not Safe For Work?!

---

by: stomv @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:45:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think New York is going to be able to use this (6.00 / 1)

to lure that plastic business away.
N.Y. County Becomes First in U.S. to Ban Toxic Chemical in Baby Bottles

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:01:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I must object (0.00 / 0)

Bob Neer,

After thinking about this all day (no, not non-stop!), I have decided I really need to protest your (mis)caricaturization of my Senator.

He did not ever say he wants to use children as guinea pigs. I think your title is way over the top, and demeans whatever valid criticism you may have of him.

---

by: Michael Forbes Wilcox @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:42:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

His actions speak plainly, he doesn't need to say it in words (0.00 / 0)

His position is: risks to very small children be damned, I want to help a big chemical company in my district. We know there is a lot of evidence that BPA hurts kids. It's a not a certainty, however, which is why continuing to allow it to be mixed into children's milk (via their baby bottles) is a real world trial.

That's treating little children like guinea pigs: using their small bodies to test whether this chemical really is dangerous (as the FDA says is a matter of concern) or is benign (which we all hope). I guess we'll know in some years time.

Of course he didn't say verbally "I want to use the babies of the Commonwealth as guinea pigs to test whether BPA is safe or not." But that is exactly what he is saying by opposing this legislation.

I note that some supporters of the Senator initially argued that he couldn't possibly really have taken such a reckless position. His "clarification" today showed that, sadly, my characterization was dead-on accurate. We haven't heard any more from those commenters, you note.

If you think my headline is unfair, you need to explain how permitting little children to be exposed to this chemical -- which a large amount of research suggests may be quite dangerous to them -- is not experimenting with their health.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 20:12:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]