"the proposed law would cost consumers as much as $85 million per year, raise the price of most noncarbonated beverages by 5 cents on top of the nickel deposit"
Related: Slow Saturday Special: State Defies the Fed
And you just have to love the state liar's dissembling!
“From the point of view of the Legislature, we’re looking for positive things to do that don’t cost money,’’ said Representative Alice K. Wolf, a Cambridge Democrat, who sponsored the bill and pointed out that nearly 100 municipalities have resolutions in support of changing the law. “This is good for the environment, and it actually raises money,’’ she said."
Umm, how can you RAISE MONEY without it COSTING MONEY?
Oh, you mean it DOESN'T COST YOU, state puke!
"Battle to expand bottle law heats up; After long struggle, backers optimistic" by David Abel, Globe Staff | October 8, 2009
.... Advocates say the Patrick administration’s increasingly vocal support, pressure from municipalities, and plummeting state revenues make it more likely that the 28-year-old law will finally win approval to include bottled water, juices, and sports drinks, which account for about a third of beverages sold in Massachusetts.
The administration estimates the state would raise about $58 million by allowing redemption of an additional 1.5 billion containers a year, or about $20 million more than the state earns from the current law, and that municipalities would save as much as $7 million in disposal costs.
Yeah, sure; you guys ALWAYS OVERESTIMATE the revenue, you self-serving sacks of s***!!!!!!
Advocates also cite the momentum of the recent expansion of bottles laws in New York and Connecticut. More importantly, they say, the politics are increasingly favorable....
NO they are NOT! NOT with the GENERAL PUBLIC!!!!
Proponents of expanding the bottle law, which passed in 1981 when lawmakers overrode a veto by Governor Edward J. King, argue that it is needed to respond to the dramatic rise in the number of plastic containers. The Container Recycling Institute, a Washington-based group that monitors the recycling of bottles, estimated that Americans doubled the amount of bottled water they drank between 2003 and 2005, when more than 50 billion plastic bottles ended up in incinerators, landfills, or as litter.
“From the point of view of the Legislature, we’re looking for positive things to do that don’t cost money,’’ said Representative Alice K. Wolf, a Cambridge Democrat, who sponsored the bill and pointed out that nearly 100 municipalities have resolutions in support of changing the law. “This is good for the environment, and it actually raises money,’’ she said.
Opponents of the bottle law say that expanding it amounts to a tax that raises the cost of beverages, promotes fraud by encouraging cross-border sales of bottles, and curbs efforts to expand other recycling programs. They argue the state would be better off encouraging curbside recycling, used in fewer than half of the state’s 351 communities....
Like MY TOWN, huh?
At the hearing yesterday, environmental groups and beverage industry representatives offered opposing statistics to support their arguments....
Kevin Dietly - a principal at Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, a Westford firm hired by the Massachusetts Food Association - told lawmakers that the proposed law would cost consumers as much as $85 million per year, raise the price of most noncarbonated beverages by 5 cents on top of the nickel deposit, and would improve the state’s recycling rate by less than 1 percent.
“Expanding the deposit law would provide minimal environmental benefit at a substantial cost,’’ said Dietly, who has long opposed bottle laws. “Given the poor return on investment and the collateral damage caused in the form of increased fraud and adverse impacts on existing recycling programs, an alternative path should be explored.’’
Proponents of the proposed law said Dietly’s arguments are misleading and called it absurd to suggest that allowing people to redeem deposits on their bottles reduces other recycling efforts. They also rebutted the notion of an expense to the state, saying the existing law generates revenue. While the arguments for and against the law have changed little in recent years, Secretary Ian Bowles of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs said the recent expansion of bottle laws in New York and Connecticut is changing the terms of the debate. He said he has found an increased openness on the part of bottling companies to the proposed changes in Massachusetts....
For the bill to pass, it would probably need the support of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray. Both declined to comment through their spokesmen.
But advocates insisted they are more optimistic about the bill’s chances than ever before. They said that of 17 members of the committee, eight have cosponsored the bill, four have expressed support, and none have come out in opposition.
So UNDO the BELT, lower those TROUSERS, BEND OVER and SPREAD THOSE CHEEKS, Bay-Stater!!!
Yup, they will NICKEL and DIME YOU to death in this state, and FOR WHAT?
Governor Guts State Services
Pigs at the State Trough
A Slow Saturday Special: Statehouse Slush Fund
Biotech Giveaway Was Borrowed Money
Massachusetts Residents Taken For a Ride
UBS Picks Up Pike
Slow Saturday Special: Day at the Movies
The Hollywood Heist of Massachusetts
Why Massachusetts Needed to Raise Taxes
Is THAT WHAT YOU INTENDED for YOUR TAX DOLLARS, Bay-Stater?I thought not.
