But, But, They mean well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Tigermike 3,053]

January 03, 2007

Is This Any Way to Help the Homeless?

By John Stossel

Mary Baker and Ruth Neikirk love to cook. What's more, they love to cook for poor people. They do it frequently, preparing meals at home and bringing them to their church in Virginia.

"I love it," Mary says. "I can take a little bit of something, like a soup bone? And I can make a whooole pot of something. Tastes good. With some cornbread you got 'em a meal!"

The people they cook for love it too. But there's a problem. It was "criminal activity." The Fairfax County health department points out that -- horrors -- Mary and Ruth are actually preparing food and serving it to people! Without a license!

That's not safe, said the health department. What if there's food poisoning? Hundreds of pages of regulation say that if you want to serve food to the public, you need a food-manager certificate, a ware-washing machine (with internal baffles), drain-boards, ventilation-hood systems, a sink with at least three compartments, as well as a hand-washing sink, can openers with removable parts, and much more, for page after page.

The county health department wasn't being capricious. It was just enforcing its rules. There had been a complaint. No one had gotten sick, but an "advocate for the homeless" noticed that church kitchens, which appeared sparkling clean to my ABC team, didn't meet "code."

"You've got to be kidding, give us a break," the Rev. Judy Fender told us. "We can fix a nice meal here, but we can't serve it!"

The health department said it was just looking out for the homeless. But did the officials ever think about where street people eat when they don't eat at these churches?

"They've never stopped me from eating out of a dumpster or a trash can," says James, an astute homeless man who understands Henry Hazlitt's "economics in one lesson," namely, look for the secondary results of government policy. [http://www.fee.org/store/detail.asp?id=372] The government can close down the church kitchens, but that'll only send the poor to the garbage cans. Is that better?

"Some of them take their jobs just a little too seriously," said James. "They got nothing better to do than sit around and write legislation."

James has put his finger on another important point: the perverse incentives facing bureaucrats, who get no credit if they never meddle in our peaceful activities.

An old, near-toothless man agreed with James. "I thought they was crazy. I mean, they're [the church people] helping people, and they're trying to stop it."

Rev. Fender added, "They've set up a situation that you have to have a $40,000 kitchen to feed someone who's going to get their food from questionable sources at best."

Rev. Kathleen Chesson said her First Christian Church would not obey the rules. "Our agenda is to feed the hungry. We're going to feed the hungry. That's it."

Before I could confront the county officials about this ridiculous situation, the bad publicity had already prompted a reconsideration. "I got up and saw my morning newspaper and was horrified," said Gerry Connolly, who heads the county government. "I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I asked him, What if the health department had been around when Jesus was feeding the poor? "He might have been, you know, cited," Connolly replied with a laugh.

So this story has a happy ending: Connolly exempted churches from the regulations. But let's not celebrate.

"Fairfax is stepping back," James said. "They're saying they're not going to enforce it ... for now. This year. What about next year?"

Again, that's a pretty astute analysis. If you catch the attention of the media, you can bask in your government leader's forgiveness. But what about next year, and what about the rest of us who are still stuck with all the rules?

The rules are well-intended. They're meant to make sure the public is safe. But rule-makers tend to forget that their rules have unintended consequences. And, as James pointed out, eating out of dumpsters is more dangerous than eating at a church without a three-compartment sink.

link

By "perverse incentives" read: government officials get to feel good (and self-righteous) about doing something "to help the homeless", when in reality their actions only hurt them.

But, they mean well....Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

[Tiger Al 0]

January 03, 2007

Is This Any Way to Help the Homeless?

By John Stossel

Mary Baker and Ruth Neikirk love to cook. What's more, they love to cook for poor people. They do it frequently, preparing meals at home and bringing them to their church in Virginia.

"I love it," Mary says. "I can take a little bit of something, like a soup bone? And I can make a whooole pot of something. Tastes good. With some cornbread you got 'em a meal!"

The people they cook for love it too. But there's a problem. It was "criminal activity." The Fairfax County health department points out that -- horrors -- Mary and Ruth are actually preparing food and serving it to people! Without a license!

That's not safe, said the health department. What if there's food poisoning? Hundreds of pages of regulation say that if you want to serve food to the public, you need a food-manager certificate, a ware-washing machine (with internal baffles), drain-boards, ventilation-hood systems, a sink with at least three compartments, as well as a hand-washing sink, can openers with removable parts, and much more, for page after page.

The county health department wasn't being capricious. It was just enforcing its rules. There had been a complaint. No one had gotten sick, but an "advocate for the homeless" noticed that church kitchens, which appeared sparkling clean to my ABC team, didn't meet "code."

"You've got to be kidding, give us a break," the Rev. Judy Fender told us. "We can fix a nice meal here, but we can't serve it!"

The health department said it was just looking out for the homeless. But did the officials ever think about where street people eat when they don't eat at these churches?

"They've never stopped me from eating out of a dumpster or a trash can," says James, an astute homeless man who understands Henry Hazlitt's "economics in one lesson," namely, look for the secondary results of government policy. [http://www.fee.org/store/detail.asp?id=372] The government can close down the church kitchens, but that'll only send the poor to the garbage cans. Is that better?

"Some of them take their jobs just a little too seriously," said James. "They got nothing better to do than sit around and write legislation."

James has put his finger on another important point: the perverse incentives facing bureaucrats, who get no credit if they never meddle in our peaceful activities.

An old, near-toothless man agreed with James. "I thought they was crazy. I mean, they're [the church people] helping people, and they're trying to stop it."

Rev. Fender added, "They've set up a situation that you have to have a $40,000 kitchen to feed someone who's going to get their food from questionable sources at best."

Rev. Kathleen Chesson said her First Christian Church would not obey the rules. "Our agenda is to feed the hungry. We're going to feed the hungry. That's it."

Before I could confront the county officials about this ridiculous situation, the bad publicity had already prompted a reconsideration. "I got up and saw my morning newspaper and was horrified," said Gerry Connolly, who heads the county government. "I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I asked him, What if the health department had been around when Jesus was feeding the poor? "He might have been, you know, cited," Connolly replied with a laugh.

So this story has a happy ending: Connolly exempted churches from the regulations. But let's not celebrate.

"Fairfax is stepping back," James said. "They're saying they're not going to enforce it ... for now. This year. What about next year?"

Again, that's a pretty astute analysis. If you catch the attention of the media, you can bask in your government leader's forgiveness. But what about next year, and what about the rest of us who are still stuck with all the rules?

The rules are well-intended. They're meant to make sure the public is safe. But rule-makers tend to forget that their rules have unintended consequences. And, as James pointed out, eating out of dumpsters is more dangerous than eating at a church without a three-compartment sink.

link

By "perverse incentives" read: government officials get to feel good (and self-righteous) about doing something "to help the homeless", when in reality their actions only hurt them.

But, they mean well....Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

[AURaptor 1,126]

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on anothers comments.

"I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

[Tiger Al 0]

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on anothers comments.

"I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

[Tigermike 3,053]

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on anothers comments.

"I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

Are you using maroon as in a dark brownish-red or as abandoned on a desolate island?

Also it appears Raptor knew exactly what you were doing, he was correct in his comments. Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on another's comments.

[Tiger Al 0]

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on anothers comments.

"I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

Are you using maroon as in a dark brownish-red or as abandoned on a desolate island?

Also it appears Raptor knew exactly what you were doing, he was correct in his comments. Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on another's comments.

Tigermike, the article wasn't hard to understand. This is a case of the rule of the law interfering with the spirit of the law. It's not that hard. I found your comment rather silly and sophomoric considering the republicans have been in control of Congress looking out for our welfare for the last 12 years. This event DID happen within that time frame, didn't it?

[AURaptor 1,126]

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Tigermike's comment aside, did you not see the sad state of affairs when the Federal Imperial Gov't tells us we can't feed our fellow man, that it MUST be from an Gov't regulated and approved kitchen, or we must not feed them and instead force the homeless to forage through garbage cans for scraps ? GOP / DEMS both, or neither, it matters not. The bureauratic nightmare we have in this country seems to be beyond either party's ability to influence.

[Tiger Al 0]

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Tigermike's comment aside, did you not see the sad state of affairs when the Federal Imperial Gov't tells us we can't feed our fellow man, that it MUST be from an Gov't regulated and approved kitchen, or we must not feed them and instead force the homeless to forage through garbage cans for scraps ?

Again, the article wasn't that hard to understand.

[Tigermike 3,053]

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on anothers comments.

"I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

Are you using maroon as in a dark brownish-red or as abandoned on a desolate island?

Also it appears Raptor knew exactly what you were doing, he was correct in his comments. Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on another's comments.

Tigermike, the article wasn't hard to understand. This is a case of the rule of the law interfering with the spirit of the law. It's not that hard. I found your comment rather silly and sophomoric considering the republicans have been in control of Congress looking out for our welfare for the last 12 years. This event DID happen within that time frame, didn't it?

Still going right over your head isn't it Al? My comment had nothing what so ever with anything that has or has not happened in the past 12 years. It only had to do with dems in the next two years. You are the ones who say and imply that you "care more". For some time many people have defined the main political division in the United States as the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party. Democrats represent people who believe that the government should mother the American people. And Republicans represent people who believe that the government should be a strict father. That is what I was referring to, your Mommy Party.

[Tiger Al 0]

We'd never have this happen under the republican watch, would we? Oh, wait...

Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on anothers comments.

"I think sometimes the rules overpower common sense."

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Expect to see a lot of this in the next 2 years, especially with a Democratically-controlled congress looking out for your welfare.

Are you using maroon as in a dark brownish-red or as abandoned on a desolate island?

Also it appears Raptor knew exactly what you were doing, he was correct in his comments. Way to miss the point entirely, Tiger Al!! Try not ignoring the entire article when you focus in on another's comments.

Tigermike, the article wasn't hard to understand. This is a case of the rule of the law interfering with the spirit of the law. It's not that hard. I found your comment rather silly and sophomoric considering the republicans have been in control of Congress looking out for our welfare for the last 12 years. This event DID happen within that time frame, didn't it?

Still going right over your head isn't it Al? My comment had nothing what so ever with anything that has or has not happened in the past 12 years. It only had to do with dems in the next two years. You are the ones who say and imply that you "care more". For some time many people have defined the main political division in the United States as the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party. Democrats represent people who believe that the government should mother the American people. And Republicans represent people who believe that the government should be a strict father. That is what I was referring to, your Mommy Party.

It would seem that the mommy party had nothing to do with this. Maybe the daddy party's been in the closet too long.

[Tigermike 3,053]

It would seem that the mommy party had nothing to do with this. Maybe the daddy party's been in the closet too long.

Wrong assumption Al, why would it seem the mommy party had nothing to do with it? There was no mention of either party in the article. But it did sound like something a democrat working for the Fairfax County health department would push. In fact there are recent examples of the democrat Mommy Party looking out for the "little people."

Foie Gras Banned In Chicago, Law Affecting Restaurants Is Passed ...

The Chicago City Council has passed a bill ordering restaurants to stop serving the bird liver delicacy which is made by a method considered inhumane and ..

link

In fact their reasoning for banning Foie Gras was not because it was bad for who ever ate it, but because it is considered inhumane to animals."

New York City Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats - New ...

New York City Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats ... Three years ago, the city banned smoking in restaurants, now no trans fat.

NY TIMES

[AURaptor 1,126]

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Tigermike's comment aside, did you not see the sad state of affairs when the Federal Imperial Gov't tells us we can't feed our fellow man, that it MUST be from an Gov't regulated and approved kitchen, or we must not feed them and instead force the homeless to forage through garbage cans for scraps ?

Again, the article wasn't that hard to understand.

Except for you, who chose to comment only on that which wasn't even IN the article in the 1st place.

[Tiger Al 0]

I was commenting on this, maroon:

Tigermike's comment aside, did you not see the sad state of affairs when the Federal Imperial Gov't tells us we can't feed our fellow man, that it MUST be from an Gov't regulated and approved kitchen, or we must not feed them and instead force the homeless to forage through garbage cans for scraps ?

Again, the article wasn't that hard to understand.

Except for you, who chose to comment only on that which wasn't even IN the article in the 1st place.

Unless something's changed, I can comment on any aspect of a post that I want, can't I? Now, go outside and play on the interstate.