Assembly candidate keen on cultivating local markets for local products

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDOYN-6gdRE">http://www.youtube.com/watc…;

♫ Made in New York, made in New York ♫

Both Tops and Wegmans do this now.

It sounds like Mr. Barons is definitely ready for Albany. Only a true politician can think of these things. I would prefer a press release to read something like...

"One of the many keys to restoring New York State’s economic vitality is for state government to get out of the way of NYS businesses. My program to jump start NY's economy involves a one-two punch.

The program targets state government itself, and all NYS taxpayers -- lowering NYS expenses by cutting back services across the board, without exceptions, and lowering taxes and fees to increase the purchasing power of residents and businesses in NYS.

In 2002, New York retail sales amounted to $178,067,530,000. Overall, U.S. retailing accounts for 8.1 percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Using my plan, I am confident that NYS retail sales will increase dramatically as we begin to see the positive results of less government interference in commerce."

Sean, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Sean,
They can't even pass a budget, let alone do much else right.

This sounds very similar to the already existing NYS Dept. of Ag & Markets "Pride of NY" Program, with the exception of the Local Enterprise Credit component.

The Pride of NY Logo can be found on many "made in NY" and "grown in NY" products in our local stores.

JoAnne, I'm sure that the "Pride" campaign was developed from a past political campaign season. There now needs to be another BOLD move to show us how much these new politicians care about us. Besides aren't two government programs better than just one? Think about how much more money the state can spend putting two stickers on every apple you buy.

It's a shame that politicians believe they need to come up with new ways to spend our money to get elected. I'm sure this great idea came from the Democrat campaign play book with a title like "Win the Farmers Back 2010!". Just more games.

Charlie,
CM supports the governors idea of taxing drinks with sugar.

So, if the drinks are made, bottled and sold here in NY, the store gets a tax break, but the customer would have to pay more?

John, can you cite the reference to supporting a tax on drinks with sugar?

Bea,
Yes. On April 5th, he posted he supported the tax, saying that it was for our health. You can go back and find it, or just ask him (asking is easier).

John, this seems to be an issue you like to bring up.
I don't have time to look for all the references right now, but you bring it up again in June and CM answered you.
Can you cite a reference after June 21 where he retracts his opposition and favors this tax?

Posted by John Roach on June 21, 2010 - 8:24pm
Policy wise, I cannot support anyone who supports taxing soft drinks, which he does. To me, that’s just the food police trying to control what I eat or drink. Again, personal opinion.

Posted by C. M. Barons on June 22, 2010 - 1:27am
I posted the state health dept. phone number on this site immediately after my own call objecting to the tax.

I thought the same thing Charlie.

It's a shame that no one has a playbook titled, "Cutting Wasteful Government Spending 2010".

JoAnne: there is, his name is Warren Redlich, he is the Libertarian Candidate for Governor of NY. http://wredlich.com/ny/
Actually it's called Stop Wasting Money, but it's the same idea

I do not support punitive taxation, and I have made that clear on multiple occasions.

Being opposed to the use of high fructose corn syrup as an ingredient in food is NOT the same as supporting a tax to discourage consumers from buying products that contain that ingredient.

I do not purchase products containing ingredients I do not care to ingest. I make known my product concerns to companies that use ingredients I object to. When I share those concerns in this blog, I hope readers will take my statements literally. I fail to see how providing the State Health Department phone number enabling readers to voice their dissatisfaction might be construed as support for the beverage tax.

Penalizing the consumer, however well-intentioned, by attempting to modify buying behavior with a tax fits into the category of 'two wrongs don't make a right.'

And to return to the original thread- as further evidence to my non-punitive philosophy...

The Local Enterprise Credit is a TAX BREAK for retailers. I purposely fashioned this to be win-win, rather than imposing cost increases through tariffs or taxes on non-local origin products and produce that would be passed on to the consumer.

Bea,
Sorry, I had the date wrong, it is 4/6 (at 1:53 AM) not 4/5. The 4/5 date is when the posts on the subject were started.

CM wrote related to the proposal to tax sugar drinks, "On the same token, companies that produce products detrimental to public health should fund medical treatment for the ills caused by their products and/or the cost of educating consumers as to safe use of their product."

That is support for the idea to me.

I have already seen some videos of Mr. Redlich's speeches. Thanks for posting the link again.

I would like to see ALL candidates/incumbents of every government level add "watchdog" to their resume and make searching out and eliminating wasteful spending a required step before proposing any new spending...sort of like a "fiscal" version of an environmental impact study.

It's easy to spend money. It's even easier to rob from Peter to pay Paul. I just think that Peter should represent wasteful spending and Paul should represent essential spending. Wishful thinking, I know!

Posted by John Roach on July 21, 2010 - 10:54am
Bea,
CM wrote related to the proposal to tax sugar drinks, "On the same token, companies that produce products detrimental to public health should fund medical treatment for the ills caused by their products and/or the cost of educating consumers as to safe use of their product."

That is support for the idea to me.

Where did he state he supported that tax? You read into it what suited you. You also chose to ignore his response, on this site, posted before you posted this one.
We are aware that you won't support CM, which is your choice. But, you seem to be beating a dead horse.

Posted by C. M. Barons on July 21, 2010 - 10:25am
I do not support punitive taxation, and I have made that clear on multiple occasions.

Being opposed to the use of high fructose corn syrup as an ingredient in food is NOT the same as supporting a tax to discourage consumers from buying products that contain that ingredient.

C.M., I understood that your proposed Local Enterprise Credit was a tax break. I'm just not convinced that the reason some local products are not on store shelves is because retailers won't dedicate shelf space.

I once asked a friend of mine, who is an onion grower/broker, why I can't buy his onions locally. He explained that the local markets were too small for the large volume that he deals in. A tax break for retailers isn't going to bring his onions to our local market unless they dedicate half their parking lot to an onion display.

Which producers/growers is your proposed incentive supposed to help?

Is there evidence that there is a problem obtaining shelf and display space at local retail establishments for local goods?

Consumers pay the tax- not the company. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to fund reparations for health risks attributable to the manufacturer.

JoAnne, produce distribution in this country is handled in large quantities- as you point out. However, the process is quite sophisticated, having the ability to identify point of origin, organic/non-organic, etc. Sorting capabilities could easily direct New York grown onions to New York markets.

I am also keeping in mind smaller farm operations that might handle their own distribution. Niche items such as exotic vegetables for ethnic foods are not produced in large quantities, but could present a market opportunity for the small scale farmer.

Hops used to be grown locally. With the resurgence of small breweries, most hops is imported from New Zealand at $9.00 an ounce. Although hops won't ever be a big seller at the supermarket, there are retailers that support home brewers- why not sell New York grown hops instead of imported hops? Ultimately, local grown hops could serve breweries across the country.

CM wrote today that, "Consumers pay the tax- not the company. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to fund reparations for health risks attributable to the manufacturer."

True, but CM, you also know that companies will pass their costs on to the customer. When you tax the company, you end up taxing us.

Well, John, since I haven't advocated a beverage tax on consumers or manufacturer's, I guess that clears me- doesn't it?

CM,
Surprise we don't agree.

I believe that in April you supported the tax, and now you don't. You say you never supported it.

I'll leave it at that, and at latter time we'll talk about your research on veteran's issues.

C.M. I am 100% in favor of supporting local farmers. But, if they already have a market for their goods and don't need my purchase to keep them afloat, I'm OK with that. The important thing is that they have a market for their goods. I don't see the need to redirect the supply chain for a product that I can otherwise purchase readily and doesn't result in taking market share away from a local grower.

As far as the smaller farm operations, what is really preventing them from offering their exotic niche products locally? Designated shelf space or low demand? Giving an incentive to retailers would only increase supply, not necessarily demand.

As a professional cook by trade, I accept the fact that there are certain ingredients that I have to take a road trip to purchase at a "niche market" or purchase them online. There simply isn't enough of a demand locally to support certain products.

How would your proposed program differ from "Pride of NY"?

C.M. wrote, "Consumers pay the tax- not the company. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to fund reparations for health risks attributable to the manufacturer."

Why should the person who made the CHOICE to buy the product not be responsible for the decision?

While I agree with John that the tax ultimately gets passed on to the consumer, why burden the manufacture for the choice of a consumer.

It's called individual responsibility. Putting the burden on manufactures is an aspect of collectivism.

JoAnne, it's just about keeping the local business afloat -- it strengthens the local economy. The more money you spend with a local business, the more money that stays in the community, churning through the community, adding to community wealth. That local farmer probably hires, for example, a local CPA, and his employees probably eat at restaurants in the area.

But, of course, if the local business can't meet your needs or the reasons you describe, that's a different issue.

Howard, my post was referring to the large growers that don't market locally for the reasons I described in an earlier post. They still support the community as you describe, but they don't rely on us to buy their products.

JoAnne, I'm just trying to explain/clarify, that your dollar (and by your, I mean mine, too) goes further when, if at all possible, spent locally. I'm trying to clarify that it isn't just about keeping the local business in business -- though that's a good thing, too -- but about contributing to the economic well being of the community. I acknowledge that in many circumstances, including as you describe, that isn't possible. I just was reacting to the implicit suggestion that the only reason to shop local is to make sure the local business stays in business. That isn't the only reason. Nothing critical in it.

John, what part of this answer, written in April, says he supports a tax on beverages with sugar?

"On the same token, companies that produce products detrimental to public health should fund medical treatment for the ills caused by their products and/or the cost of educating consumers as to safe use of their product."

Your answer is "That is support for the idea to me."

Why not let the readers decide if you are right or wrong.
You may be surprised to learn that you are beating the thing into the ground.

Bea, maybe John thinks that CM believes in taxing sugar drinks and changed his position when he decided to run to help his chances at the polls?

Trust in a candidate is important. We have a lot of people in Albany who say one thing and do another.

Thanks for the clarification Howard.

Bea,
Where did I ever say readers could not decide for themselves? Did you just make that up? I gave my opinion, I do have that right, don't I?

What he wrote on April 6, is still there, Charlie. I don't believe he changed is position.
By the way, and this isn't meant to be snarky, but you certainly are branding certain politicians as the scum of the earth lately.
There are good people who decide to run for office. They aren't political hacks and have no ambition to make politics their life long career (I'll include you in this group, just as I would CM).
By definition, running for office does make one a politician. Can it be that anyone running for office can't be trusted? Does that include those that you support?

John,
I said let the readers decide.
Either they will agree with you or they won't.
I would never deny you the right to an opinion, which is far more than you give those who disagree with you.

Bea,
OK, when did I deny anyone the right to an opinion? And, how would I be able to do that? Did you make that up again?

Bea, don't read more into what I wrote than is written or I intended. I actually feel pretty good about CM as a person and I never said he was scum or anything remotely like that.. I have said multiple times that I respect his openness. Although, he has not changed my cynical mind.