The Bethie Bee

Further proof that government is way out of control:

The casserole has been canned.

Under a tough new Fairfax County policy, residents can no longer donate food prepared in their homes or a church kitchen — be it a tuna casserole, sandwiches or even a batch of cookies — unless the kitchen is approved by the county, health officials said yesterday.

The Rev. Keary Kincannon’s Rising Hope United Methodist Mission Church will open its hypothermia shelter Friday under the new enforcement policy. (By Lois Raimondo — The Washington Post)

They said the crackdown on home-cooked meals is aimed at preventing food poisoning among homeless people.

But it is infuriating operators of shelters for the homeless and leaders of a coalition of churches that provides shelter and meals to homeless people during the winter. They said the strict standards for food served in the shelters will make it more difficult to serve healthy, hot meals to homeless people. The enforcement also, they said, makes little sense.

“We’re very aware that a number of homeless people eat out of dumpsters, and mom’s pot roast has got to be healthier than that,” said Jim Brigl, chief executive of Fairfax Area Christian Emergency & Transitional Services. “But that doesn’t meet the code.”

County officials estimate that about 2,000 people are homeless in Fairfax. They are served by a network of shelters that swells to more than three dozen over the winter. FACETS, a Fairfax nonprofit group, coordinates most hypothermia shelters, which are set to open Friday in two dozen churches and other facilities.

The crackdown came after the county Health Department received a complaint about food being served to the homeless population that was bedding down at area houses of worship as part of the wintertime hypothermia program that began last year. Health officials took a closer look at what shelter residents ate and where the food came from.

Under state and county code, food served to the public must be prepared in a kitchen that has been inspected and certified by the county Health Department. Those standards are high: a commercial-grade refrigerator, a three-compartment sink to wash, rinse and sanitize dishes and a separate hand-washing sink, among other requirements.

Health officials said they weren’t aware that food from unapproved kitchens was being served in homeless shelters.

“We’re dealing with a medically fragile population . . . so they’re more susceptible to food-borne illnesses than the general population,” said Tom Crow, the county Health Department’s director of environmental health. “We’re trying to protect those people.”

To help the churches prepare, the Health Department is waiving a $60 fee for certification and is holding additional safe food-handling classes for church volunteers. It is also giving churches that do not have approved kitchens a list of other houses of worship with such facilities.

“We’re not trying to come across as being a heavy-handed government,” Crow said.

Nonetheless, ministers from several of the two dozen participating churches said they oppose the crackdown and hope the Health Department backs off.

“We see the reason for being certified. They want to ensure people’s health and safety,” said the Rev. Keary Kincannon of Rising Hope United Methodist Mission Church in the Alexandria portion of Fairfax County, which will open as a hypothermia shelter for four months starting Friday.

“On the other hand, how much do you have to be a stickler with that?” Kincannon asked. “What’s more important: whether we’re open to have somebody get in out of the cold and get a meal? There’s kind of a balance there.”

The Rev. Judy Fender of Burke United Methodist Church said 50 volunteers had been planning to cook beef stew, pork loin and other nutritious meals in the church kitchen when it hosts the hypothermia shelter Dec. 17 through 23.

But she found out this week that, because the kitchen is not Health Department-approved, it will have to prepare its food elsewhere.

It will be a logistical nightmare, Fender predicted, and is an insult to members who have cooked meals for years in the church kitchen without any problems.

“Why do [they] think that the traditional way of fixing a home-cooked meal is going to poison people off the street?” Fender asked.

She said she will appeal to a higher authority to get the Health Department to back off.

“I’m probably going to be in prayer that something is going to give on this,” Fender said.

The crackdown has also hit year-round shelters. They prepare their food in on-site commercial kitchens, but many also accept donations from people who bring leftover food, home-baked goodies and other products to their doors.

“It takes the personal element out,” said Pam Michell, executive director of New Hope Housing, which runs three year-round shelters and two wintertime programs.

“There’s something about being able to bring a batch of brownies or being able to bring a home-cooked casserole to a shelter and feel like you’re doing your part to end homelessness,” she said. “That warm, fuzzy touch is going to go away.”

This is really sad–the government always wants to get its hands involved in charity work, and helping the needy…but when private organizations take some initiative to do charity work (probably much better and more efficiently than the government can), it is banned. Go figure.

Anyone heard of anything similar happening in other municipalities?

H/T: ChequerBoard

see the story here.

Thomas Sowell has a great column discussing Arthur C. Brooks new book “Who Really Cares?” which, as Sowell explains,

examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others.

For me and probably most of my readers, it may seem self-evident that conservatives give more to charity than their liberal counterparts, but this goes against the wisdom of the average person on the street, who has been taught to believe that conservatives are rich and greedy, and don’t give to charity because they’re too busy counting and hoarding their money. However, Brooks found that the reality was just the opposite. As Sowell explains,

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find — so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.

This is no mere coincidence. It goes back to the ideological beliefs that drive people on both sides of the isle. According to Sowell,

Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.

The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.

Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.

H/T: No Government Cheese

Walter Williams had an excellent column a couple of days ago on all of the economic reasons we shouldn’t copy Europe. Here’s an excerpt:

Government spending exceeds 50 percent of the GDP in France and Sweden and more than 45 percent in Germany and Italy , compared to U.S. federal, state and local spending of just under 36 percent. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes to finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn’t surprise anyone. U.S. per capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40 percent higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations,.

South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun (R) shakes hands with Angel Gurria (L), secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), during their meeting at the presidential Blue House in Seoul September 21, 2006. Gurria is in South Korea on a four-day visit to attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of South Korea’s entry into OECD. REUTERS/Jung Yeon-je/Pool (SOUTH KOREA) Over the last decade, the U.S. economy has grown twice as fast as European economies. In 2006, European unemployment averaged 8 percent while the U.S. average was 4.7 percent. What’s more, the percentage of Americans without a job for more than 12 months was 12.7 percent while in Europe it was 42.6 percent. Since 1970, 57 million new jobs were created in the U.S., and just 4 million were created in Europe.

Its crazy enough that PETA is attacking living nativity scenes, but especially that they have attacked Anchorage First Free Methodist Church in Alaska for their living nativity–which doesn’t use animals, just people in animal costumes.

Read the full article here.

I thought I’d pay tribute to economist Milton Friedman, who died today at the age of 94, by sharing some of his best quotes with my readers:

A top vatican official denounced the U.S. plan to build more fences along the Mexican border yesterday, calling the plan “inhumane” and comparing the fence to the Berlin Wall.

VATICAN CITY - A top Vatican official Tuesday denounced a U.S. plan to build more fences along the Mexican border as “inhumane” and compared the project with the Cold War-era Berlin Wall.
Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Holy See’s office concerned with migrant and itinerant peoples, urged the United States to allow more foreigners to enter legally.

“I must note, unfortunately, that in a world which greeted with joy the fall of the Berlin Wall, others are being erected between neighborhood and neighborhood, city and city, nation and nation,” he said in a news conference to present Pope Benedict XVI’s annual message about migrants.

I’m not Catholic, so I’m not even going to get into the obvious question of why the Vatican is even concerning itself with something it seems like reasonable, faithful Christians can disagree about. But I do want to point out one huge flaw in the Cardinal’s comparison of the fence along the Mexican border to the Berlin Wall–the Berlin Wall was built by an authoritarian government to keep people IN East Germany…the US is not building the fence to keep people from leaving the United States–the US is simply attempting to have immigrants come in to the United States through legally prescribed means.

I’m generally very pro-immigration, but asking people to follow some basic rules when coming to the United States doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Furthermore, comparing a fence along the Mexican border is not only innacurate, it is offensive and trivializes the impact of the Berlin Wall.

“Health care is coming back,” Clinton warned, adding, “It may be a bad dream for some.”

Read the whole story here. Maybe this is a good thing–universal health care might sound good, but maybe Americans reaction to the reality of a universal health care system with give the Dems a little reality check. Thoughts anyone?

Another favorite Hillary quote from the article:

“We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with our Republican counterparts. Our country works best when we govern from the vital, dynamic center,” she said.

Besides her own universe, what the hell does Hillary Clinton think she’s the center of?

Tom Knapp has an open letter to Libertarian Republicans on thetoday, which is definitely worth Free Market News Network looking at. Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

Most of you, I suspect, are less than happy with what transpired on Tuesday. You shouldn’t be. Yes, the Republican Party took a beating — a beating it deserved in spades. But if you look at the results, what Americans rejected was NOT the residual libertarian strain in Republican thought, but the corruption and statism recently displayed in Republican action.
To put a finer point on it, libertarian Republican casualties on Tuesday were the exception, not the rule. Toby Nixon, Ken Lindell and others were taken down by stray shots; they were not the ones in the voters’ sights.

Ron Paul handily won re-election versus an NRA-endorsed opponent.

At least two known friends of libertarianism in the GOP — Butch Otter in Idaho and Sarah Palin in Alaska — are now governors-elect of their states.

Of 12 states with initiatives on the ballot to rein in government abuse of eminent domain, nine passed them.

Anti-war-on-drugs measures passed in numerous localities, and although they failed at the state level, they garnered considerable support (and who, ten years ago, would have dared dream that they’d make the ballot, let alone command the votes of double-digit percentages of the electorate)?

What did libertarian Republicans lose on Tuesday?

You lost some “friends” who had exploited the libertarian label but who never deserved it. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona. George Allen in Virginia. Jim Talent in Missouri. In losing them, you lost … baggage. These were folks you never should have been in bed with in the first place — and in your hearts you know I’m right. Know-Nothingism, Mrs. Grundyism, crony “capitalism” and jingoism may make for a nice wave to ride in the short term, but the undertow’s a bitch when that wave collapses. Thank your lucky stars that for the most part those who got sucked under were the ones who deserved it — and that they didn’t take the whole libertarian Republican movement down with them.

Right now, libertarian Republicans are the only faction in the GOP left standing. Everyone else has been drowned in the deluge or is still cowering on the beach, coughing up water and trying to figure out what the hell hit them. You guys are the only ones left with any credibility, any muscle, any ideas that resonate with the public. If the Republican Party has a future, YOU ARE IT.

Knapp also says,

Like I said, libertarian Republicans, this moment is YOURS. What are you going to do with it?

If you walk away from the GOP, it will circle the drain for awhile before disappearing into the sewer of history, and the Libertarian Party will be left with the challenge of trying to become America’s second political party. I can think of worse things, but I doubt that your minds are turned in that direction.

If you continue to give the anti-libertarian elements in your party the support that they’ve never deserved, that they’ve never earned and that they’ve continually betrayed, you’ll go down with them. I sincerely hope you won’t do that. Your movement needs you more than you need your party.

The third alternative is to GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. There’s never been a more opportune time to do so. A libertarian takeover of leadership within the GOP is the only thing that can possibly save it. Yes, your party will take some more losses in 2008. That’s inevitable. But you can minimize those losses, hold the line in 2010, and lead a Republican resurgence in 2012 and beyond.

Mind you, I’m not talking about signing on with placeholders and fakes like Pence and Shadegg until the old “Play for K Street” crowd gets itself reorganized. I’m talking about a full-court press to take over the congressional minority leadership with the most libertarian Republicans you can find. House Minority Leader Ron Paul. House Minority Whip David Dreier. Senate Minority Leader Judd Gregg. Insert your own names, but make sure that you’re sponsoring a real revolution, not just new wallpaper.

In the past, libertarian Republicans have freely applied the carrot, but hardly ever the stick. You’ve stuck with a party that has betrayed you time and again. Sometimes you’ve kept your silence; sometimes you’ve even cooperated in the charade. On Tuesday, the American people — with a little help from the Libertarian Party in places — applied the stick, hard. Are you going to whine and rub your asses … or are you going to make the most of the opportunity?

Knapp may be a little harsh–but I think he has a good point, and its a point that’s being echoed all over in some shape–those of us who are strong proponents of limited government need to use the recent Republican losses as an opportunity to get the Republican party back on track.

H/T: Positive Liberty

As a little precursor to The Dems upcoming attempt to raise the minimum wage, I thought I’d share this gem by John Fund on the activist group ACORN with you:

Founded by union organizer Wade Rathke in 1970, Acorn boasts an annual budget of some $40 million and operates everything from “social justice” radio stations to an affordable-housing arm. Still run after 36 years by Mr. Rathke as “chief organizer,” it is best known for its campaigns against Wal-Mart, and for leading initiatives in six states to raise the minimum wage….

Acorn is vulnerable to charges it doesn’t practice what it preaches. Its manual for minimum-wage campaigns says it intends “to push for as high a wage as possible.” But it doesn’t pay those wages. In 2004 Acorn won a $9.50 an hour minimum wage in Santa Fe, N.M., for example, but pays its organizers $25,000 a year for a required 54-hour week–$8.90 an hour. This year Acorn had workers in Missouri sign contracts saying they would be “working up to 80 hours over seven days of work.” Mr. Rathke says “We pay as much as we can. If people can get more elsewhere, we wish them well.”

In 1995 Acorn unsuccessfully sued California to be exempt from the minimum wage, claiming that “the more that Acorn must pay each individual outreach worker . . . the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire.” Mr. Rathke acknowledges higher wages can cost some jobs but that the raises for other workers are worth it.

So maybe the really do have a basic understanding of economics, but choose to push forward an agenda that doesn’t work in the real world? I just don’t get it… Whatever, it was good for a laugh anyway.

H/T: Coyote Blog