On KQED Radio this morning on the local show Forum with Michael Krasney held a defacto debate on the proposed Alcohol Mitigation Fee between San Francisco Brewers Guild president Rich Higgins and city supervisor John Avalos, who introduced the ordinance to tax alcohol sold in San Francisco. Rich held his own as best he could, but Avalos is a seasoned politician more used to dodging questions and spinning data his way. Plus, it seemed to me most of the callers were sympathetic to him and hostile to Rich, though most seemed more than a little uninformed (thanks local media). Same deal on the show’s web page, New Alcohol Fee for San Francisco?, where one commenter went so far as to call Rich unprepared because he didn’t know how to remedy the city’s financial problems, as if that’s his job. Unbelievable.
Perhaps most annoying was Michele Simon’s call. She’s an attorney and holds the position of Research & Policy Director for the Marin Institute, the organization that’s largely responsible for the proposed “fee” ordinance. She called to make it clear that their target was the big foreign alcohol companies and that she, too, likes beer or wine now and again so therefore the Marin Institute is not a neo-prohibitionist group, as she added that many of their critics have resorted to name-calling. Was she going for sympathy that anyone might have the temerity to be critical toward the organization? I call the Marin Institute a neo-prohibitionist because I sincerely believe that’s what they are, not because I’m on the playground in 5th grade. [Ms. Simon, in a comment (see below) also agrees that name-calling is a tired strategy. I would, however, counter that proper labeling of the character of any organization is useful, and even sometimes critical, to knowing their intentions. When I say the Marin Institute is a neo-prohibitionist group I do so not to simply lob a pejorative at them, but instead to characterize them as I indeed view them.]
Of course, their policies are what leads me to that conclusion. I know they keep saying they’re not anti-alcohol — and maybe they even believe it — but what they actually do is contrary to that. Actions speak louder than words. If it quacks like a duck, guess what it is? They may claim to be against just big alcohol, but their actions harm the small family breweries, wineries and distilleries far more than they ever hurt the big foreign corporations.
And they know it, too. Back when they were going after Alcopops, the big companies told them outright that if their legislation passed that every one of them would change the formula of their products so the new legislation would no longer apply to them. Who would it continue to apply to? All the small breweries who barrel-age their beers, that’s who. And they told the Marin Institute that fact directly to their face, in Sacramento. So they knew that their scheme would not do what they said it would and would instead directly harm people they claimed were not their target. What did they do? Crow about their hollow victory, that’s what.
Then there’s the fact that the Marin Institute gets at least a portion of its funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is most definitely not just a neo-prohibitionist group, but the neo-prohibitionist group. Read the Center for Consumer Freedom for their very different take on whether the Marin Institute is neo-prohibitionist or not. [Note: Ms. Simon writes that they no longer receive funding from the RWJF. The report I cited is from 2003, and it may well be they no longer do receive funding from them.]
I know that I’m not beloved in the halls of the Marin Institute, but that’s probably because they’re used to having most people, and particularly the media, swallow what they’re selling uncritically, often without examining it all. They enjoy widespread support because of the way they manipulate their information and shape propaganda to raise money from the faithful. Few politicians can stand up to them because of decades of demonizing alcohol on several fronts. And the media just seems to roll over rather than be seen as pro alcohol. That leaves mostly the industry to fight them, and they end up seeming too self-serving even if that’s not always the case. That’s how we got to where we are today, with alcohol paying more in taxes than any other consumer good — and still it’s not enough. It’s never enough.
Anyway, you can listen to the entire hour here, or you can go to the KQED archive and download it for later.
Still, overall I think Rich did much better than I would have done. I would have lost it on more than a few occasions. He at least kept his cool. Well done, Rich.
Rich Higgins in his brewery at Social Kitchen.
Jay,
2 corrections:
1) Marin Institute has not received any funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in at least 10 years. Not that it matters much, but I just think your sources may need updating. Our funding is from the Buck Trust. As for the viewpoints of the Center for Consumer Freedom, if you want to trust the lobbying arm of the largest players in the tobacco, alcohol and food industries, that’s up to you, but let’s be clear on that group’s funding sources.
2) I wasn’t going for sympathy, just setting the record straight. Name-calling is a tired strategy used to distract from the substance of the issue. If you’d like to discuss the merits of the fee issue, or any others, over a beer sometime, just let me know.
best,
Michele (one I, btw)
Jay,
Now you need to take her up on her offer to have a beer together and discuss the issue. I’m sure I speak for a lot of folks when I say that we all look forward to your post summarizing your meeting with her.
Certainly a respectful post by Michele, even if it didn’t address the fact that their policies are harmful to small businesses or the many legitimate concerns with the fee, both practical and philosophical.
Do yo plan to take her up on that offer for a discussion over beer, Jay?
I’m also glad to see Michele posting here and keeping a dialogue going, but, to the second item, Jay has certainly not resorted to name calling. He continually backs up his position with examples and is quick to point out when and why the square peg being presented doesn’t fit in the round hole that is reality. I might add, he is also quick to point out and address any errors he might make. Not something most people are willing to do these days, which kind of tends to lend a little creedence to his other arguments. He is a beer advocate. Does this potentially taint his outlook? Possibly, quite probably in fact, but the same can be said for the opposing side.
Meh, there’s a reason why San Francisco’s so screwed up. Too many touchy feely types trying to foist their idea of a utopian world onto everybody else while ignoring reality.
Cars are bad — so let’s make using them as expensive and inconvenient as possible. After all, it’s just those bridge and tunnel types that use them. Because I live in the City (sniff, sniff) — I can ride a unicycle to work — so I don’t care if gas goes to $10 a gallon, etc.
Because of these selfish ignoramuses, businesses continue to move out of San Francisco in droves. Major corporations like Chevron — gone. Large organizations like AAA and Patelco — gone or soon to be gone.
Yet don’t tell that to the touchy feely types. They think everything’s just ducky — until somebody breaks into their Saab — thereby preventing them from getting their kids to their tumbling lessons (taught by somebody from Belgium — so it must be good) on time.