Yea, salt talks, and I'll tell you what it's saying. The proposal to ban salt and fine its use by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, is easy, very easy, to ridicule. I mean the puns on "salt" are probably beyond numbering. But the occasion of his bill is actually much more useful to highlight something much more serious.
There is absolutely nothing in principle to distinguish the thinking that led to his proposed salt ban from the thinking that leads to every other nanny state initiative you can think of, large or small, to include the very large health care proposal that is currently before us. Ortiz may be just a lowly Assemblyman, but in this he is no different that President Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi, or any and every other liberal Democrat politician of the last half century. Oh, the President and the Speaker may, and likely will join in the poking fun at Ortiz. But neither of them can make a principled case against his initiative.
Among the many dangers of the Democrat's health care bill is that it's a slippery slope in reverse. You see the slippery slope objection usually works the other way around. That is, if one surrenders in a small matter, it invariably leads to a much larger concession down the road. But in this case, if you concede that the government should have some very large, if not complete role in the delivery of health care, then controlling whether or how much salt you can shake on a plate of french fries not only follows logically, it's necessary.
Come to think of it, you shouldn't be eating those fries either.
No comments:
Post a Comment