Roberto said that adding $80 billion more dollars to the federal debt in order to save the jobs of government workers is not the path to recovery and will not create sorely needed private sector jobs, especially in Western New York.

[...]

“The 2009 Stimulus Act has been a proven failure,” Roberto said. “The Stimulus failed to create private sector employment, and it has actually done little for areas even with high government employment rates like Western New York.”

“Why are we now going to add more of a burden to taxpayers in order to pay for a proven policy failure?” Roberto added.

“I find it disheartening that in the midst of one of the worst recessions in our history that the President is proposing more spending in order to bailout bloated state governments and is not doing the things necessary to stimulate growth in the nation’s private sector.” Roberto said.

Will Brian Higgins vote against another “stimulus”? Ha, that’ll be the day. It is really said that Higgins has become such a left-wing partisan that he’ll vote for failed policies. I mean, come on, if the first stimulus worked and had done what Obama claimed it would do we wouldn’t need another one would we?  Is party unity really more important than a real recovery? Ultimately it is up to the voters of the 27th congressional district to not be swayed by his constant self-promotion. He touts small bits of waterfront development as the fruit of his looms, while businesses leave the city, leaving buildings empty, and these precious new projects unvisited. Sure, the Aud was finally taken down, but where’s the new Bass Pro? Higgins has spent his entire public career pushing for the unsafe Skyway to be replaced and taken down. Still there.

Come on Higgins, be bold. Do the right thing for a change. Building up Buffalo will be a lot easier if the economy was doing better. We can’t rely on census workers inflating the dismal unemployment numbers for long.

Specifically, their site notes that Hallwalls gets “major support” from the New York State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts, both of which my extensive research indicates are governmental agencies.  In essence, the public is paying for someone else’s idea of “art,” which should trouble all involved.

Artists’ output is by definition subjectively appealing.  What some find interesting or fun is junk to others.  You’re free to dislike the poker-playing dogs and velvet Elvises if you’d like, snob, but that’s the point: it’s a personal decision that should lead to a voluntary purchase.

But guess who doesn’t care?  The web gnomes at Hallwalls are too busy being self-righteous to worry themselves about how you would spend your money.  A passage from their history section illustrates how they equate restriction of expression with having to earn livings on their own:

After a spurt of growth in the late 1980s, public arts funding at all levels of government was cut drastically, accompanied by attacks on artists’ free speech. Hallwalls—like all organizations nationwide—was forced to cut back, both its overall budget and its staff size, while simultaneously embracing a new additional role as a fearless advocate for artistic freedom as well as innovation.

That’s nice, although the paragraph could have used some humorlessly tedious bitching about the vileness of Republicans.  Other than that, the author is rather demanding about his or her sense of entitlement to state and federal money without state and federal restrictions.  The only thing worse than a panhandler is a mugger.

What the paragraph producer doesn’t get is that the cuts took place for good reason: it’s not the public’s job to finance any particular expression.  Freedom of speech is worlds different from the freedom to have your speech subsidized.

The group’s forays into partisanship aren’t helping, either.  Take a recent event where Hallwalls screened Stop Loss, a thoroughly antiwar film that also tanked at the box office.  But they had their heart set upon pushing an agenda, as indicated by the beginning of their event description:

This first in a series of events sharing the stories of war resisters and their struggles for justice

…And so forth.  It’s always nice when groups that get your money tell you how to think.  Such brazen disregard for drawing an audience is unacceptable yet sadly understandable given the circumstances.

Ignoring commercial potential is to be expected from a group that’s set up shop in Babeville, Ani DiFranco’s clubhouse.  That company’s site also brags about the public currency it received, which is for some reason is a common theme among people with fierce aversion to authority:

Babeville is in fact two buildings: the sanctuary, which faces Delaware Avenue, and the parish house, which faces Tupper. Viewed from outside, they appear to be a single entity—which is not a bad metaphor for the way that Babeville brings together past and future, art and commerce, private and public funding.

What a rebel!  Oddly, the purportedly autonomous DiFranco wouldn’t get a loan to cover the entire cost of setting up her own business.  Antiestablishment types should be opposed to receiving government checks, but they seemingly only hate The Man until the electric bill arrives.  Meanwhile, they’ll undoubtedly suggest that Carl Paladino is a hypocrite for taking available tax credits.  Perhaps insisting on direct grants would have been preferable.

They also want the state and nation to continue propping up artists who want to inflict their work upon the community, even though many consider much of what’s produced to be a study in weirdness.  Of course, you’re free to like anything made by any creative type, as fondness for art and music is as personal as any other human experience.  That said, if you like Ms. DiFranco’s music, you’re wrong.  To be fair, she at least cornered the market on staccato feminist anthems.

But it’s still up to you whether you listen, as is your fondness for the art group in question.  It’s not that there’s anything inherently wrong with Hallwalls, as they should be free to sponsor and produce whatever they’d like.  And many people undoubtedly appreciate having such arty outposts in the city even if they don’t patronize them.  But they should get to opt out: the sole issue is with the mandatory backing by workers in the state and country.

Money taken from the general populace shouldn’t back a nonessential function during boom times, and the dole should certainly dry up during an era of continuous economic teetering.  Cutting funding would force Hallwalls to work harder to attract donations and an audience willing to compensate them for what they generate.  And that’s as it should be, just as with every other business.

It might mean higher admission fees for next year’s Artists & Models, which is fine and desirable, too: ticket buyers would merely be paying market rates.  Only attendees having fun ought to be charged, just as you shouldn’t have to pay for a piece you wouldn’t hang in your den.

It’s no better to use public cash to fashion supposedly edgy installations than it is to buy Thomas Kinkade calendars for everyone.  If he is indeed the Painter of Light, then it’s best to wallow in the darkness.

The state’s “Great Appliance Swap Out” will distribute about 170,000 rebates totaling $16.8 million to New York residents who replace their old refrigerators, washing machines or freezers with ones that meet ENERGY STAR standards.  Consumers will be eligible for additional rebates if they recycle their old appliances.

The government decides on how much you get depending if you want to chill, wash, or ice your things:

The rebates will be funded on a first-come, first-served basis by federal stimulus money.  Eligible refrigerators and washers qualify for a $75 rebate, while freezers qualify for $50.  If the old appliance is recycled, the refrigerator rebate increases to $105, the washer to $100 and the freezer to $75.

Consumers who want the biggest taxpayer-funded check had state-backed incentive to acquire as many domestic machines as possible:

The largest rebates are reserved for those who purchase a refrigerator, washing machine and dishwasher together as a package.  That rebate is good for $500, or $555 with documented recycling.  The appliances in the package deal must meet Consortium for Energy Efficiency standards, which are tougher than the ENERGY STAR marks.

“Documented recycling” is a pleasant way of saying that the Green Police will hunt you down to the tune of a butchered Cheap Trick classic if you toss your old junk in a Dumpster.  If you comply and therefore remain avoid detention, the state’s executive wants you to shop.  Our possibly-not-doomed governor is still hustling for his agenda while he can:

“This program will provide a tremendous incentive for consumers all across New York to reduce their energy consumption while providing an important stimulus to our economy,” Gov. David Paterson said in a statement.

This is not to accuse the governor of any illicit behavior whatsoever.  But that shouldn’t stop him.  It doesn’t matter if it involves taking drugs, checking into hotel rooms with ladies to whom he is not married, accepting bribes, shoplifting, jaywalking, violating open container laws, or any other amusing offense: please, Governor Paterson, do something naughty that’s resignation-worthy.

Conditions were rotten in this state before he became the default governor, and his replacement would likely share the same economically odious philosophy.  But Paterson is still crimping our financial outlook regardless of whether he’s quitting tomorrow or being voted out by November at the latest.

Namely, he’s pushing a state program that entices consumers to do something that would already benefit them.  Shoppers are going to naturally choose more energy-efficient products: after all, picking items that use less power saves money on bills.  But why trust the public?  Paterson and his dwindling band of adherents don’t get that well-designed goods produced by innovative private concerns do more to reduce emissions than any cash for (blank) or capping and trading ever will.

The tawdry policy is also based in the notion that human progress and comfort is rendering the Earth uninhabitable.  That’s fine, except for the fact that it’s not.  Global warming theory officially contains more holes than the ozone.  With that in mind, keeping working appliances on the job is the most sensible financial policy.

That’s especially so during a period of economic upheaval when many can’t afford to replace every item with a plug they own.  But the state would rather people spend money they don’t have if it generates a cursory retail activity spike.  It’s allegedly for our collective good.

It’s irrelevant whether Albany or Washington is on the prowl.  Both monoliths believe that they can improve the economy by taking money out of the economy.  Artificially unnecessary green goals are unfeasible without severe governmental intrusion.  Of course, the rebates in question are being funded by taxpayers, so buyers are at best getting a little ahead at the expense of others.  In New York, that’s considered a boom.

But that’s only part of the problem.  More disturbingly, the state’s bribe will artificially accelerate purchases consumers had planned to make in the months ahead, setting us up for yet another sales dip soon.  An Adrenaline shot is the most blatantly phony method available for initiating a momentary stimulus.  Worst of all, they had to let the patient flatline first.

Plus, your odds of at least being close to a Powerball retailer just increased dramatically.  WGRZ, which just happens to be carrying the drawing’s results live, has the story about how neighboring states won’t suck up all the jackpot ticket revenue anymore:

New York is now one of 33 states across the country to offer both the Mega Millions and Powerball lottery games.  As of last Sunday, players were able to start buying their Powerball tickets for Wednesday’s drawing, which has jumped to 115 million from 107 million due to strong sales.

That means New Yorkers can officially make fun of the 17 states that remain left out.  Even better, gamblers who wouldn’t bother with their home state’s relatively trifling prizes can cancel day trips to stockpile chances:

Previously, New York residents had to travel out of state to buy a Powerball ticket, which many people did when the jackpot went really high.  Now players are able to take part in four big drawings a week for major jackpots, two for Mega Millions and two for Powerball.

Did people really cross state lines to play a game whose odds of winning are a bit over one in 195 million? It seems hopeful lotto participants could have saved time and gas money by playing the New York lottery; they could have enjoyed hoping to win a measly $20 million or so.  But it’s officially moot.

And we can feel good about losing, as at least a portion of the losses fund a worthwhile cause.  Namely, buying a ticket amounts to a charitable educational donation:

The New York Lottery Aid to Education contributed over 2.5 billion just in 2008-09, which is over 12% of total state education funding to local districts.  50% of the sales of Powerball and Mega Millions goes toward the fund.

This voluntary contribution would hopefully, although not presumably, lead to a reduced tax burden: instead of throwing more money at public schools in a futile attempt to provoke better academic performances, our leaders could maintain funding levels and let taxpayers keep the difference.  While that’s currently beyond improbable in this state, it’s a possibility to hope for if we select financially responsible leaders this November.

Until then, it’s nice to be associated with the good luck ping pong selection process, and not just because Powerball’s Real Letters is one of the funniest official web site pages ever. Their employees’ sense of humor regarding the unfathomably bizarre feedback they receive is marvelous in itself.  It’s further proof that it shouldn’t have taken this long for New York to affiliate with a humdinger of a lottery.

People ought to be permitted to bet at will on whatever they want.  That right goes beyond state-sponsored drawings and casinos on sovereign territory: private enterprises should be permitted to enter the “gaming” (gambling) business, too.  Wagers don’t harm people without their consent: suckers who put down money are only hurting their own wallets’ respective hefts.  If the state’s role is to prevent citizens from voluntarily wasting their money, we should ban Snuggie sales, too.

The odds are irrelevant.  People who are going to gamble away their children’s insulin money will find a way to squander their wages.  That’s regardless of whether they live in a risk-legal state.

As for more casual entrants, Powerball offers an improbable yet affordable chance to daydream about acquiring a hovering castle or gold-plated aircraft carrier.  If you don’t anticipate winning, it’s fun to play.  And, if you don’t win, there’s always hope that next time will be different.

Slips with randomized or personally significant numbers printed upon them offer a reminder to be excited about life’s potential.  If you lose, throw it out, cough up another buck, and try again.  For New Yorkers, it’s nice to be able to finally play along for the opportunity to obtain all the currency you could want.

In particular, their January 31 take on the subject, helpfully titled “Earned Income Tax Credit can be a bonanza,” points out everything fantastic about the program, namely, well, everything about it.  Remarkably, it also seems as if there are no drawbacks to blessing particular citizens with financial gifts:

“The EITC is one of the largest and most effective anti-poverty programs in the government,” David R. Williams, the IRS’ director of electronic tax administration and refundable credits, said on a media call last week. “It can make a significant difference in the lives of lower-income taxpayers, basically because it’s a credit that’s there for people who work but don’t make a lot of money.”

In other words, your government has decided that people who don’t earn much deserve more.  As a result, they’re essentially donating other people’s money to charity.  Oh, and they don’t bother to put the gift in anyone’s name, either.

The story points out that recipients get a credit even though they haven’t technically earned one.  For the beneficiary, that’s even better than finding a bursting sack adorned with a dollar sign on the sidewalk:

The EITC is a refundable credit for working individuals and families who do not earn high incomes. Like other tax credits, it is applied against taxes first, but can result in a refund.

And it helps the economy, at least in a theoretical, stimulus-didn’t-actually-cause-more-unemployment sort of way:

That allows qualifying taxpayers to keep more of what they earn, so they can save money or spend it locally in their communities. In turn, that not only helps lift recipients, but provides an economic development benefit. It has no effect on certain welfare benefits, and usually won’t affect eligibility for other government programs.

Wow: David Axelrod could have written that paragraph.  Hell, it sounds uncannily similar to the usual empty leftist schlock our president reads off his magical scrolling-word screen.  Reporter Jonathan D. Epstein should apply for White House work if the newspaper business ever gets boring.

On a related note, the article devotes exactly, whoops, zero space to dissent.  Markedly, the correspondent devotes ample paragraphs to an appreciative recipient of the policy’s cash.  He shamelessly notes that the subject plans to use the money to start a college fund for his daughter.  Even you diabolical conservatives couldn’t be against a child’s education, could you?  That’s quite heartless, and probably bigoted for some reason, too.

That said, perhaps those on the right could calmly point out the argument for the currency shift comes down to “getting a check is good.”  Oh yeah, and conservatives will also note that the bonus money is taken from others.  Class warfare is in session, but only those who skip off deserve credit.

Yet the rag’s editorial staff neglected to find anyone who thinks the wealth transfer is detrimental to both the economy on the whole and ultimately to its recipients.  After all, the reallocated money would assuredly have been spent or invested by those from whom it was seized; that would be good news for retailers or other companies, respectively.  But the present administration and its dwindling army of sycophants quite obviously are loath to acknowledge that we all profit when greedy fat cats buy things with the ample money they’ve made.

In fact, many hold that this form of mandatory wealth sharing is at worst rife with fraud and at best a tax refund for people who don’t pay taxes.  Somehow, none of them were contacted by a News reporter or editor looking for even cursory balance.

The EITC is an entitlement that demonstrates why getting free money is always a bad deal.  Every word of the name is fraudulent: the cash doled out is not earned, income, or a tax credit.  Those who want to redistribute income should at least be upfront about it.

Additionally, the reporter could have taken the time to let readers know the price of these currency gifts.  Specifically, the EITC will cost nearly $50 freaking billion this year.  Of course, noting the onerous price wouldn’t fit with the paper’s cheery social democratic narrative.

It goes without saying that everyone is entitled to disagree that the checks from Washington in question amount to a welfare payment.  What’s not okay is to forget that there might actually be opponents of the Robin Hood approach to taxation.  By willfully or obliviously overlooking them, the city’s newspaper has once again disgracefully tried to pass off opinion as reporting.  The numerous left-minded columnists at The News should revolt: they don’t need in-house competition.

New Yorkers are miserable. But at least now we know why. Specifically, a state government that eats much of your paycheck is concurrently making you sad. The phenomenon of Empire State-based dejection has been analyzed before. Now, Allysia Finley of the Wall Street Journal has highlighted a Science magazine study that specifically claims people who can’t keep much of what they make are directly rendered disconsolate about it. As New York’s residents know quite well, that includes them:

The study finds that New Yorkers are the unhappiest people in America and their neighbors in Connecticut come in a close second, followed by Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California, and Illinois.

Many forlorn-heavy states share political tendencies:

Eight of the ten happiest states lean right while eight of the ten unhappiest tilt left. While the study by no means proves that being liberal makes people unhappy, it does reflect some of the unfortunate implications of living in a blue state.

It’s not that liberals are naturally miserable people. Necessarily. That said, their policies do make humans gloomy. There’s one particular trend among depression-provoking, left-tilting states: they like your money and help themselves to it.

Considering how much New York’s crime rate has dropped and schools have improved in the last decade, taxes seem to overwhelm even these two critical factors in the happiness equation. According to the Tax Foundation 2008 analysis, three of the top five unhappiest states—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—have the highest state-local tax burdens.

It’s too bad oh so selfish individuals are focused on keeping what they earn and rewarding themselves for their labors with little treats to get through life. The government would prefer for you and your comrades to alternately surrender and gladly fund state workers’ generous pensions and union-level salaries:

In states with high property, income, and sales taxes like New York, people have less money to spend on other things that make them happy. They have less money to spend on vacations, hobbies, home improvements, eating out and child care. Another problem may be that people receive a low return on their tax dollars.

The government could at least buy you something nice with your money:

The study’s authors note that people are least happy in states that impose high taxes but don’t provide matching public benefits (e.g. good highways to relieve congestion and reduce commute times). It’s in states where taxes disproportionately subsidize public employee pensions and entitlement programs, but don’t much improve the general public’s quality of life, that people are most unhappy.

This intuitively makes sense. If you’re paying more than a third of your income in taxes, as many New Yorkers do, then you expect to realize the benefits from your hard-earned tax dollars. You expect quality schools, good roads, low crime rates, and quick commutes. You expect your local and state governments to be responsive to your needs, not to the cash flows of entrenched public employee unions and other special interests.

But it should be painfully hard to justify high levies even if we can see that the state is buying worthwhile things. People have the right to expect that the government can pave roads and fight crime without confiscating an oppressive portion of incomes. Regardless, we’re not exactly seeing platinum-paved avenues and jet pack-equipped cops in return for the involuntary investment.  And inhabitants are fed up enough that they’re bailing:

Many liberal state governments like those in Albany, Trenton and Sacramento are spending more and more on entitlement programs and public employee pensions, racking up more and more debt, and imposing more and more taxes to pay for it all—while ignoring their taxpayers’ needs. Taxpayers, however, aren’t just getting unhappy. They’re getting out. United Van Lines’ 2009 annual study shows that New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois are among the states with the highest outbound migration while Alabama and Tennessee are among the states with the highest inbound migration.

People don’t cross intra-American borders permanently without cause: often, profligate states give them a push, and inertia carries them the rest of the way.

And personal sunniness only compensates for a finite level of darkness.  Even with a good attitude, environment plays a crucial part in one’s well-being. When conditions get rotten enough, many people simply find new surroundings.

That’s especially true when one gets ripped off for the privilege of living within a certain jurisdiction. No matter how onerous the federal burden becomes, there are always better options in competing states. If New York’s elected officials comprehended the value of free markets, their domain would naturally be in better shape on its own, not to mention relative to its 49 competitors for residents.

Unfortunately, Albany’s incumbents could wager that the people who don’t flee are actually pleased with the way things are. More likely, those that remain are at worst complacent non-voters; at best, they care for the state but want to improve it and see good things through. Everyone left behind should work to establish that they stayed by choice and yet remain unpleased. The prospect of saving money while simultaneously increasing happiness should provide ample motivation for citizens to pursue fixes.

In the meantime, if New York’s politicians can’t bother to minimize their role, they ought to use some of the money they seize to assuage residents’ troubles.  Namely, they could buy us Klonopin and Prozac, or at least ice cream and lager.  Such consumable remedies would help us cope with the apprehension and/or despondency caused by dealing with their policies.  Eh, never mind: they’d probably add a user fee and make us pick up our medicine at the DMV.

For example, Louise Slaughter has been the bane of Western New York’s conservatives ever since contrived redistricting bumped her into the area.  But Slaughter’s adversaries can finally agree with her, kind of, for the first time since the invention of her earmuff-shaped domain.

The Weekly Standard has drawn attention to a story in The Hill which highlights a most unlikely alliance between children and the Trix Rabbit.  Specifically, conservatives and Slaughter equally hate the Senate’s attempt at remaking health care, even if for diametrically constrasting reasons:

Slaughter argued that while the House bill is far from perfect, the Senate bill’s exclusion of a public option, along with abortion funding restrictions and other measures, make the bill undeserving of a vote.

Foes may want either more or less governmental participation in health care.  But they at least agree that the upper chamber would set involvement at the wrong level.  As for a centralized power enthusiast, Slaughter writes in a linked CNN.com editorial that the present attempt to commandeer one-sixth of the economy won’t make anyone happy:

But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?

She wants the right thing for the wrong reason.  Naturally, she thinks ceding more control to Washington will aid competition, somehow:

I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform.

 

By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn’t worthy of its support.

In summary, she maintains that an entity with unlimited funding that doesn’t have to worry about profitability, efficiency, or service would bring down prices and enhance the market.  Perhaps the feds should first demonstrate the ability to create and/or save jobs.

Big business’ foes curiously think big, big government will alleviate everything.  But who cares why she hates the bill that snuck through Congress’ other side during shifty late night and holiday sessions?  Sabres and Leafs fans can hate both each other’s teams and Ottawa.

In this case, there’s eclectically widespread contempt aimed at different Senators.  A semi-prominent liberal has gained some odd, extremely provisionary allies in conservatives, libertarians, and tea partiers who all despise the bill as much as she does.

The dissenting coalition’s formation resembles voting-based reality show strategizing.  In short, competitors are temporarily uniting to knock off a formidable yet undesirable fellow player.  The uneasy coalition can worry about taking out each other at a later time.  For now, the right and a prominent member of the left can unite in one common belief: the odiously devious Senate bill sucks, and opponents must gang up on it to ensure it’s sent packing.

City Hall lending to business has dropped by almost half since Mayor Byron W. Brown took office, and its primary economic development agency is on track to make just 10 loans this year, a Buffalo News investigation has found.

Documenting how little currency the scheme has distributed is one approach for contemplating its weakness. Another is to ponder why the municipality issued 10 loans at all. Buffalo is over-parenting and babying its favorites when they should be letting merchants spread their wings. On top of that, an inordinate number of the establishments in question rightfully owe taxpayers meals and booze, respectively:

Forty-five cents of every dollar lent by the agency under Brown has gone to retail, with most of that – 31 of the 45 cents – going to bars and restaurants. Many development programs shy away from investing in this type of retail activity because of its limited economic benefit.

It’s not as if they lend your money wisely even under those circumstances. Aside from thoroughly sham enterprises such as One Sunset, the story notes that beneficiaries include local favorites such as 8 p.m. darling Oliver’s and 12:15 a.m. standby Pano’s. Such beloved culinary landmarks should function as cash registers that fill themselves. Instead, they have resorted to hitting up the government, which tells you all you need to know about same government’s success at improving the economy.

Buffalo’s administration is attempting to clean up a mess they caused; worse, their solution is to spill more grape juice on the carpet. Even worse, some of the businesses are slipping DVDs they pilfered from you alphabetically into their own collections. As the News reveals,

One-third of the businesses that have borrowed money since Brown took office are delinquent in repaying their loans. Twenty-one of the 58 businesses BERC lent money during Brown’s tenure are anywhere from two months to two years in arrears, accounting for 17 percent of money borrowed as of the middle of October.

Hmmm, it’s not really “borrowing” if it’s never paid back. Mooching aside, there’s also bad news for people still hoping that the stimulus will create or save jobs:

The agency can document the creation of only 99 to 112 jobs over the past four years. That’s less than was typically created in one year under Masiello, which wasn’t necessarily impressive to begin with, and doesn’t even begin to make up for the rising tide of unemployment among city residents.

The results of this small-scale experiment can’t quite please Obamanomics adherents. Alternately, perhaps lowering taxes would allow entrepreneurs to use their own assets or other private resources to generate employment without the city’s heavy hand batting around the game pieces and nah.

Chicago School daydreaming aside, it’s hard to give restaurants grief for exploiting the funding. They’re just taking what’s available. Conservatives can advocate privatizing Social Security. But if they’re paying into the system and the money is being scattered, it makes no sense to pass.

However, the best course remains to remove Buffalo’s spending program as an option. A flourishing metropolis shouldn’t have or need a development agency: they should be dodging away from commerce’s path and letting gastronomical entities compete for themselves. The city also shouldn’t be effectively endorsing one restaurant over another, which is what effectively happens when they determine which meal-dispensing outposts are worthy of financing.

Until the bureaucratic hindrance is removed, Buffalo’s mayor by default will preside over a quasi-command economy. Of all the arguments against letting the city involve itself in the food service business, Mayor Brown serves as about eight of them. The dubious politician who’s ultimately in charge of the city’s credit business is the best reason of many to dump the interventional approach. But what would restaurateurs then do when they need capital? Oh, right: they can go to a bank.

If you smoke, you might not be hired to work for the town of Amherst. At least, it’s something board members voted to officially look into in a 4-2 vote Monday night.

Attorneys and human resources will look into whether it’s legal and practical to try to hire only non-smokers.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the unhealthy habits of employees,” said Mark Manna (D-Town Board).

The town’s potential scheme puts a fairly large pool of job seekers in a bind. Even smoking Tea Partiers who feel reflexively averse to bureaucratic employment might wish to quit so they may keep employment options open. After all, Obamanomics is ensuring that the government is the source of many jobs and most of the good ones. But it’s better to remain broke than let a job boss you around during off hours. Now, will the smoker-free work zone actually happen?

Dr. Barry Weinstein (R), Town Supervisor-Elect and a medical doctor believes it may also be the town’s choice when hiring new employees.

“Is this a slippery slope, if you say we’re not going to hire smokers is the next step, we’re not going to hire people who are overweight or eat at McDonald’s or things like that?” Kristin Donnelly asks.

“It is a slippery slope… and that’s why we’re studying it. We have not made a proposal to do anything,” Weinstein answers.

We should extend cheers to Donnelly for asking a fundamentally necessary question about the concept’s chief shortcoming. She further astutely uncovered counselors who point out legal troubles with the proposal. As someone who can say things attorneys can’t, I’d like to additionally underscore that Amherst’s discussed plot is restrictive junk that would shamefully disqualify the qualified simply for puffing away their free time.

The problem with considering it is that Amherst is considering it. The mere existence of the idea that would prohibit hiring workers engaging in a legal activity is a galling affront to personal rights. The proponents claim it will save the town money on insurance. But that’s in fact an argument to let individuals buy health care on their own. That approach would save Amherst, and every other public and private employer, quite a sum.

Until then, the town is considering potentially discriminating against the wrong workers. Amherst should prefer a smoker who walks to work versus a non-tobacco user who helps clog the Tim Hortons drive-thru line every morning while acquiring a quadruple quadruple.

Massive guts may be worse than charcoal lungs. But it’s easier to just bully smokers. For one, they don’t fight back for long on account of breath shortage. More importantly, the town can get away with contemplating whether they may disqualify applicants based on a lifestyle choice that results in a little gratification: giving smokers grief is one of the last acceptable forms of bias among those who tolerate every other lifestyle choice imaginable. The excessively broadminded are curiously fine with banishing smokers either outdoors or possibly off the payroll.

But we should prefer smoking workers. They’re more relaxed and therefore extra productive, not to mention that they’re much, much cooler than non-inhaling squares. In the meantime, tobacco users should just switch to chew if this suggested policy becomes law. It’s a fun loophole that will get even better once indulgers sue for the right to have spittoons installed in the office. Amherst officials who floated the anti-smoking concept deserve both the headache and mess.

Taking an outing from Western New York and giving it to a city that wants to steal the team is the worst of both worlds.  The deal to relinquish sovereignty to Ontario for one-eighth of the home schedule is wholly worthless for all parties if it results in lousy games that leave targeted fans listless. It’s the equivalent of signing a talented horse’s ass who plays largely crummy football after the gamble. They’re on outburst alert for a player who isn’t even producing; as with the team’s failing dual citizenship experiment, there should be at least some upside.

Home field advantage has been one of the few encouraging aspects regarding the Bills over the past decade.  Local fans cheer on a team that often doesn’t deserve it. Simultaneously, the same loyal backers constantly fret about what the future holds for this oft-infuriating squad. It’s important to realize that improving Erie County’s economy will keep the Bills as a tenant in their home and native land.  No, not that one.

For one, subsidizing any private business is ultimately a mistake, no matter how much certain residents have wrapped their psyche around a home team’s success.  There’s an unconscionable amount of money leaving fans’ pockets thanks to the rabid interest in watching NFL games either live or on television paired with an insatiable desire for merchandise.

Partisans wear jerseys after renting seats for the afternoon at exorbitant prices or endure hideous commercials featuring, for example, boneheaded former players and smart-mouthed babies; at the same time, the league’s preferred light lager flows incessantly.  With such prodigious sums flowing in, there’s no reason for any franchise to be on the dole.

Everyone can get behind opposing NFL welfare.  Liberals should hope to see tax receipts spent on other governmental programs besides corporate subsidies; meanwhile, conservatives don’t want the money collected at all, preferring that workers keep it.  The Bills unite people of all political backgrounds, whether in support of the squad or in opposition to having Erie County pay to maintain Ralph Wilson Stadium so that Ralph Wilson can avoid the charge.

A sliver of fans often moan about market size as a crippling factor, casting the Bills’ billionaire owner as the little guy.  But the solution isn’t to tear down the strong: it’s to figure how to compete with them.  We should instead determine what keeps Buffalo from becoming a large market team.  The biggest factor takes the form of high taxes which are spent on non-essential causes such as, oh, a football franchise that should be paying its own tab.

Forcing the stadium’s namesake to cover his team’s upkeep would eventually help the club.  Less money spent by the government on the Bills means more money for locals to spend on, um, the Bills.  The private influx of cash provoked by a less confiscatory state, county, and city would more than overcome the franchise’s loss of public financial support.

That might mean higher ticket prices; fortunately, there would be far more people who could afford them.  A more hospitable economic situation would not only be pleasant in itself: it would also make the Treaty of Toronto a bland, failed experiment instead of an ominous forerunner to the club’s potential relocation.

The tightwad owner can at least provide fans and taxpayers with a better product.  Maybe Wilson can finally hire an experienced, successful coach this offseason; it’s not a literally impossible outcome, however improbable it might seem.  He can also cough up some of his fortune and acquire an actual general manager instead of a letting a marketing man run the player personnel department. He just needs to uncover qualified football people willing to accept a senior discount.