Finally, a refreshingly honest beer industry spokesperson
Chuck Sheketoff
Forget the honest pint. That’s just a distraction from the big beer honesty issue facing the legislature: whether to update Oregon’s woefully inadequate excise tax on beer.
With folks like Kurt Widmer doing the dirty work for Anheuser-Busch InBev (which has an ownership interest in Widmer’s iconic brewery), Oregon has been longing for someone in the industry to pour some honesty into the debate over raising Oregon’s current and sorely out of date eight-tenths of one cent ($0.008) per bottle tax on beer.
Enter Mark Kirchmeier, owner of the Krakow Café and Pub. His refreshingly honest op-ed in Sunday’s Oregonian (Argument against beer tax increase as frothy as a sloppy pour) takes craft brewers like Widmer and the big beer lobby to task:
Some in the Oregon brewery and retail lobby have reacted claiming they have a special "iconic" status that Oregonians should be grateful for and that the overhead of processing this tax would balloon the cost of the average pint by $2.I hope the public doesn't swallow that swill.
Kirchmeier goes on to note:
Cannon's measure would increase my costs no more than 40 cents a pint. For the industry to claim that beer retailers will have to spike prices -- from $3.50 to $5.50 a pint -- is the rhetorical equivalent of driving under the influence.We icons should be more responsible than that.
While calling for phasing in a more modest tax increase -- five to seven cents a pint -- than that being proposed by Rep. Ben Cannon, Kirchmeier says,
We're small, but we can absorb that. Our customers can absorb that.But what we cannot absorb is our brewery brethrens’ refusal to even slightly help fund alcohol and drug treatment for alcohol-abuse problems.
I’ll drink to that. And I’ll buy that bottle from an honest man in the beer industry.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 1, '09
I don't see why beer should be specifically targeted for taxation. I'm all for a general sales tax, but drinking beer is not a sin, so why should Oregon have such a silly "sin tax" on beer?
Oregon has some fundamental revenue problems (i.e., lack of a sales tax; the insane kicker law), and these piecemeal solutions don't address the larger problems. If the state is going to single out certain products as warranting extra taxation, the state should do so because those products are harmful. Beer doesn't fit that bill.
Jun 2, '09
"What we cannot absorb is our brewery brethrens’ refusal to even slightly help fund alcohol and drug treatment for alcohol-abuse problems."
Kirchmeier's reason why it should be taxed wasn't clear, anon?
Jun 2, '09
Each action you take has implications. The focus on only beer is silly. If we look at the long term health costs of over weight folks on the system , we would tax the Cheeseburger Industry. With the new law to disclose product calories , Salem is recognizing the obvious need to address this.
9:20 a.m.
Jun 2, '09
Sounds like Mr. Kirchmeir has a better understanding of basic human psychology than a lot of legislators and tax advocating lobbyists working in Salem.
This is how it works. After you introduce your first proposal, all of the target oxen start screaming about how they're being gored and how unfair it all is. You then reduce your original gambit some small amount and most of the gorees fall grumbling into line.
If poeple can feel that they've won some small victory in the old give and take, they are slightly less pissed off in a knee-jerk way and slightly more amenable to the good of The Commons. It ain't rocket surgery.
Jun 2, '09
Why must everything be about getting more tax revenue for the governments coffers?
this is ridiculous. the rationale that the tax rate has remained low so it is time to raise it is outlandish.
get with the program. what is the one industry doing well in oregon? The beer industry! we are known around the country for it and why?....because we have a low tax burden on this sector of the economy.
So sure...if you want to drive another industry out of oregon go ahead....just so you know there are counties in oregon that have unemployment over 20% and we are number 2 in the nation in unemployment. Hmmmmm....something abou this democratic legislature is a job killer i suspect.
we do have one of the lowest beer taxes in the country(which i see as a positive) but we have one of the highest liquor taxes in the nation. Stop asking for more money. it isnt about 40 cents a pint, 3 cents a pint, 2 dollars a pint. it is about an unneccessary growth in government financed by something you deem as not taxed enough.
Jun 2, '09
Kirchmeier is not in the beer industry. Nor is he a spokesperson for it. He is a publican - 2 steps removed from the production of the product.The producers pay the tax, publicans do not pay this directly.It is part of the price of beer. That is why a large increase is so hurtful to the Oregon Breweries. The cost of the product gets marked up twice before the consumer buys it.He quotes pints at $3.50. Go around town- most craft pints are $4.75- $5.50 each.Your prices are not real world.With this increase you would see pints pushing $7.
A 1800% tax increase is not fair to any industry.The cash flow issues alone would cripple it. The tax must be paid by in-state brewers where out of state brewers have their tax paid by importing distributors.This leads to a cash crush and puts out of state brewers at an advantage over in-state brewers because they do not have to pay the tax and it gets one less markup before retail. This could lead to having in-state beer more expensive than out of state beer. This of course does not even take into account the chain grocery stores that make buying decisions out of state.
Oregon craft brewers are one of the only industries creating manufacturing jobs in this State.Something this State is desperate for. Anything done to jeopardize that would be foolish. Period
Jun 2, '09
If indeed distributors are going to mark up the price of pints a lot more than the tax, there's a market opening to be a really profitable distributor by slightly undercutting them.
What the beer industry is saying is we have monopoly market power with distributors (which is definitely a possibility given the few number of distributors left in Oregon). They are saying there is not a competitive open market.
Here's what they're saying: the distributor marks up beer by a percentage, instead of marking it up an amount, allowing them to cover costs and make a profit. That's simply not the way efficient markets work.
Jun 2, '09
How about a tax on blog posts.
Jun 2, '09
Yes, indeed, Kirchmeier speaks the truth about the alcohol industry playing the Legislature, and Oregonians, for fools.
This "1800% increase" should tell everybody one thing, and one thing only, about alcohol taxes. It says nothing about how much this proposal raises them. It only says that the current tax is unfairly (not paying a fair share of costs the products incur for the state) and inconsistently (relative to other goods with excise taxes) small.
It's all about the denominator, honey!!!
Let's pass a good portion of this tax - and time to move on.
2:23 p.m.
Jun 2, '09
Oy--I think you're going out of your way to diss me here, Chuck. It's not enough that this lame Op-Ed gets your seal of approval (we'll get to that in a moment), but you gotta take a shot at Honest Pints, too?
Now, let's get to the Kirchmeier's "honest" post--which would better be described by the adjectives "deceptive" and "misguided." I get that people of goodwill can disagree on issues, but this story was filled with rubbish.
He joins in the claim that beer costs the state "billions." Fair enough. If that's so, and since we all agree that an offending industry has a responsibility to the state to compensate them for these costs, what are they? Could one person tell me what beer costs the state? Since this is the central justification of the tax increase, is it too much to ask for a little actual data. And since this is targeting only one part of the alcohol industry, can we also agree that beer producers shouldn't be on the hook for "alcohol-and-drug-related crime, lost productivity and health expenses."
The per-glass cost is fiction. It's not how the tax works, and part of Kirchmeier's dishonesty stems from the subterfuge that he's partly responsible. Under the legislation, the tax is paid by brewers. To couch the cost in terms of per-glass increments is dishonest because 1) it suggests the bill's a retail tax, and 2) no one knows how the tax will affect pint prices. Finally, I love the "honesty" of his calculation--using a 12-ounce glass. Even by the lax non-standards of pub-going, a 12-ounce pour is pretty hard to find.
He finishes things off with a slag against brewers, suggesting that the only reason people oppose this tax is because they want to protect local "icons." It's easier to deride and objectify your opponents than it is to admit who they are. In this case, largely small businesspeople who provide local jobs.
I have offered a solution that pro-tax supporters consistently ignore, and I have no doubt that that will be the case here. (They ignore it because while reasonable, and while it addresses each of their stated concerns, it raises few actual dollars--and since this has nothing to do with the stated concerns and everything to do with being a funding source, my solution does very little for them.)
Raise the beer tax to a level competitive with California and Washington--say $8 a barrel. (Oregon's is currently $2.60) Exempt the first 100,000 barrels so that small breweries aren't affected by the hike. This will preserve nearly every local brewery and every local job.
Jun 2, '09
Jeff- 12 oz. is the appropriate metric for a product that is most frequently "served" in 12 oz. portions. The vast majority of beer subject to this tax is sold in grocery stores, not poured at pubs.
Jun 2, '09
Jeff- Also, most of the tax is not paid by brewers. It would be paid by the distributors who import out-of-state beer to Oregon. 80-90% of beer sold in Oregon is produced out-of-state, so 80-90% of the revenues derived under this bill would be paid by distributors. Your post reflects the continued myopia of Oregon's beer cognoscenti who lose sight of the bigger picture due to their fixation on the Oregon craft brew industry. Why did the Oregon Brewers' Guild oppose the 2007 bill that would have exempted microbrewers altogether?
Jun 2, '09
Jeff, since when are taxes paid by brewers, or any manufacturers or businesspeople.
I always hear the rhetoric that taxes are always paid by consumers through higher prices.
Now I'm really confused. Oh, just like Anheuser Busch wants me to be.......
3:59 p.m.
Jun 2, '09
Jeff, take the claim of Juanita Kirkham of Wakonda Brewing Co. in Florence that the tax she'll pay will go from $208 a year to $4080 per year and who "disputed that her customers would accept the higher prices."
If she sells her 80 barrels of production in pints her customers are now paying 1 cent per mug. She just has to raise the price by 19 cents per mug and she'll collect all the money.
I can't imagine any of her customers balking at that small increase. The 19 cent added cost of the excise tax is fully picked up by the consumer, and with production at 80 barrels a year ($208 divided by $2.60 per barrel, she probably has no middle-person (aka distributor) adding on a profit markup. It is not like the additional cost is coming out of her profits..it's coming from the ready, willing and able consumer. Heck, Jeff, I bet you'd keep drinking honest pints if the price went up 19 cents and that you wouldn't be alone. The only way you and others can dispute the per glass cost is to claim that everyone, the brewer, the distributor and the retailer have to add profit to the incremental tax increase.
Ask your lobbyist Paul Romain how his other clients, the gasoline industry distributors and retailers, work. When a major oil company increases the price of gas to the distributor, that's all it is raised to the retailer and ultimately to the consumer. They have set per gallon markups, not cascading profit driven price increases.
What would really help the true small brewer (versus the Budweiser-bankrolled Widmer or the national chain Rock Bottom type places) would be to break the distributors' stranglehold on distribution and their price markups. The fact that small brewers don't have an open market to get their product out to consumers is one reason why they are sucking up to, or staying quiet about, the distributors in this tax debate.
If the price of a beer bottle went up 14 cents to the grocery store or bar because of the tax increase, there's no reason they would have to raise their price more than 14 cents. They'd still make the same amount per bottle.
4:03 p.m.
Jun 2, '09
BCR, a few responses.
On the 12-ounce thing. It's disingenuous for a publican to use 12-ounce measures. Throughout the article he talks about his personal involvement in the issue, but when he starts talking about the costs, he uses the smallest amount he can reasonably use to diminish it. Why not per ounce?--that's as meaningful to the dialogue as 12.
On who pays. It's an excise tax levied on producers. It's picked up as pass-through by distributors of out-of-state beer. But for local breweries, they alone are responsible. Easier to deride those of us who support local breweries as fanboys than admit this fact, I know, but it's dishonest.
Why did the Oregon Brewers' Guild oppose the 2007 bill that would have exempted microbrewers altogether?
Because it was put together badly. Rather than exempt the first 125,000 barrels, it exempted breweries selling under that amount. If you sold 125,001 barrels, you were taxed on all of them, not 1. Since the brewers guild represents breweries that will sell that amount of beer in the the near future, it was a poison pill and they couldn't reasonably do so.
I ask again: why not make an exemption for the first 100,000 barrels and then raise the beer tax to a competitive rate with neighboring states? Why would a state with the most vibrant beer industry in the country want to cripple it with the highest taxes?
If you support this tax, explain this to me. Let's really put the cards on the table. Because, after having debated this for 3 years, I'm convinced the main reason for offering it is as a revenue source, period. It has nothing to do with costs to the state of alcohol. Not admitting that is dishonest.
4:14 p.m.
Jun 2, '09
Chuck, I'll respond to your comments tomorrow--I'm about to be away from a computer. Your assumptions about how the industry does and can work are wrong, though, and I will be happy to offer some insight.
Jun 2, '09
mp97303,
That tax on blog posts is a great idea. Too long bloggers have gotten away with spreading ideas ant not paying a fair share in taxes.
We should also tax fat people and give the money to underfed people. we could truly equalize the nutrition wealth in the world.
That would be great.
Jun 2, '09
Jeff-- thought you disappeared after I punked you on that other beer tax thread and you failed to respond...
Jun 2, '09
On who pays. It's an excise tax levied on producers. It's picked up as pass-through by distributors of out-of-state beer.
Again, I'm not sure Jeff understands how state beer excise taxes work. 85% of Oregon's beer tax revenue originates with distributors who import out-of-state beer. This is not a pass-through from breweries; the brewer has never seen nor heard of Oregon's tax. Likewise, Oregon breweries do not pay our beer tax on beer that they sell to out-of-state distributors. In other words, Widmer does not pay a penny to Oregon for bottles they sell out-of-state (nor do they pay taxes to the destination state; that is picked up by the distributor).
The focus on Oregon's brewers continues to miss the larger point: approximately 85% of beer tax revenue is derived from distributors who import Bud, Miller, Coors, etc. We could exempt Oregon's brewers completely -- apply the tax only to beer from breweries that produce at least 1,000,000 barrels, say -- and a tax would still recover approximately 85% of the original revenues. How would that strike you?
10:27 p.m.
Jun 2, '09
perhaps we can all agree: Widmer is one of the poorer representations of Oregon beer. i'll buy Pyramid or Fat Tire (or just about anything else) before i buy Widmer. don't care for the beer, and i certainly don't care for their corporate masters.
whatever the fuckup on the part of Ben Cannon, the beer industry is not paying its fair share. and they're going to get away with it for another 2 years. 1800% was daft, but 0 is criminal. and anyone who thinks that's ok is kind of messed up.
Jun 3, '09
Why are we talking about this in June, when the bill is dead in the House Revenue committee? Where were all the groups, where were all the op-ed pieces, in February, when they could have made a difference? This is the most inept effort to pass a bill I've ever seen. Talk about not putting pressure on lawmakers -- you went to the hearing, you said your piece, and you want home. And then nothing. Here's a little tip: if you bring this bill up at yet another legislative session, grow a spine (and a brain) to make sure it gets through. Presented properly, this would be a tough bill to oppose. But you've let the opponents, however weak, control the debate virtually unchallenged. Chuck, Ben Cannon, Oregon Partnership, NAMI -- you get an F for effort on this one.
9:35 a.m.
Jun 3, '09
BCR, your suggestion about exempting Oregon brewers is along the lines I keep suggesting. I actually think an exemption on the first X amount of barrelage sold would be a more elegant way to do it. Trying to track and track down the size of breweries is not easy and doesn't need to be done. Since the state already tracks how much a brewery sells, it would be easier to tax barrelage sold, not barrelage brewed. But we agree on principle.
(I do think the 2000% is "daft," to use TA's words, and I wish legislators would come to the table with a suggestion that brewers absolutely have to oppose. Raising taxes on beer doesn't mean raising them to a rate more than a third higher than the current highest state.)
TA, on Widmer, I totally disagree. There are no "corporate masters." I assume you're talking about A-B, but they own a minority and don't dictate anything to the Widmers. Furthermore, while I'm not thrilled by Hefeweizen, if you go to the Gasthaus, you'll find a selection of beer that rivals anything Roots or Ninkasi is putting out (to name two of my faves). I wrote quite about about the Brothers W on the occasion of their 25th anniversary here if you'd like more.
Jun 3, '09
One more thing, for Jeff: Your counterproposal is sound. Get Oregon in line with neighboring states. That's the kind of thing lawmakers discuss in committee work sessions. That is, if the committee even bothered to hold a work session on it.
10:06 a.m.
Jun 3, '09
Chuck,
You describe how the tax will affect the final price of beer using back-of-the-envelope calculations. Part of the problem is that you cite a brewpub owner, who is in the unique situation of being the producuer and retailer. Most breweries must sell their beer to a distributor, who then sells it to a retailer.
Those within the industry do a different back-of-the-envelope calculation. It goes like this. Let's say a brewery sells its keg for $100 (these are fake numbers that use easy math--the principle's the point). Of that price, $1.30 is state excise tax (a keg's half a barrel). Cannon proposes raising it to $52. That would raise the price of a keg 25% to $125. (Suggestions that brewers, who already have razor-thin margins, should cut costs are made by those ignorant of brewing.) The distributor then adds their percentage--let's say 100% for easy math. Previously, the retailer would have paid $200 for a keg. Under Cannon's proposal, they're paying $250. The pub used to earn $3.33 a pint in profit on a $5 pour (of an honest, imperial pint, minus spillage), but if they keep their prices the same, they'll earn $2.75. Just to keep their margin the same, they'll have to raise the price 58 cents.
Are these calculations correct? Perhaps they're excessive--maybe it's just 50 cents. But maybe they're low, too. In no scenario does the hike amount to 20 cents at the pint. Not in a three-tiered system.
This is also inaccurate:
Ask your lobbyist Paul Romain how...
Romain's not the small brewer's lobbyist. He represents big beer. The interests ocassionally overlap, but why don't you mention Brian Butenschoen, the director of the Oregon Brewer's Guild? He's the guy fighting for local breweries. As I've said many times, I don't mind Bud paying more. I want to protect the Ninkasis.
What would really help the true small brewer (versus the Budweiser-bankrolled Widmer or the national chain Rock Bottom type places) would be to break the distributors' stranglehold on distribution and their price markups.
No argument. But that's federal law. There's no provision in here to deal with the three-tiered system, and anyway, a state bill can't address that. But we have the system, and destroying local breweries because we don't like it and refuse to acknowledge it--that doesn't really do us any good.
Again, I'd like to hear you respond to my proposal. It's rational, reasonable, and wouldn't damage our local brewing industry.
Jun 3, '09
Jeff, can you please explain to me why the distributor will add a percentage, instead of just add the same amount of profit they do now?
To repeat from above:
If indeed distributors are going to mark up the price of pints a lot more than the tax, there's a market opening to be a really profitable distributor by slightly undercutting them, and adding on just amounts, instead of percentages.
Jun 3, '09
So which is it Jeff? You stated upthread:
To couch the cost in terms of per-glass increments is dishonest because ... no one knows how the tax will affect pint prices.
Yet then go into a lengthy explanation later of how the supposed "back-of-the-envelope calculations" of Chuck, Kirchmeier, (and "others afraid of publicly identifying themselves lest they offend the brewer lobby") are unequivocally wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either you know or you don't.
And why are the statements of those who work in the retail end of the industry merely "back-of-the-envelope calculations" anyway? Do you think that you and the brewers know more about their end of the business than they do? That's a bit presumptuous isn't it?
It is clear that you do not understand the way a retail establishment operates if you believe that every price increase in any product (or ingredient that goes into that product) we experience is immediately and exponentially marked up and passed along to the consumer. That is ridiculous. We have to stay competitive in the market, and those profit margins are in place to absorb some fluctuations in our cost of goods.
Perhaps you haven't noticed how - for instance - local eateries are now offering 2 for 1 dinners, and other such enticements to get people in the door in this bad economy. Did the eateries' cost of their goods go down by 50%? Of course not. They are accepting a decrease in their profit margin (and perhaps passing along a portion of it to the consumer on other goods where the market will bear a higher price).
[Incidentally, my establishment sells honest pints of local microbrew for $3.75, joe six pack. If you're routinely paying $4.75- $5.50, after the massive price spike you claim this tax will cause you can come on up here and keep paying your usual price! That's how the market works.
When I started working there 2-1/2 years ago, the price was $3.50/pint for micro brews. We raised all our beer prices a quarter last summer when the distributor notified us of a $50 per keg increase because of gas prices and the cost of metal. (Kegs were getting stolen by metal thieves.)]
And Jeff, you keep going back to the argument that we need to break out not only the costs of alcohol abuse by beer drinkers, but by Oregon microbrew drinkers as well. How exactly would we do that? It would be impossible, and you know it. You demand "a little actual data." Yet you fully support higher taxes on cigarettes to fund children's health care with zero data to justify why that "offending industry has a responsibility to the state to compensate them for these costs." Again, Jeff, you can't have it both ways. (Well, I guess you can, but that's DISHONEST isn't it?)
I disagree that "this is the central justification of the tax increase." You are cherry-picking there. I think the central justification is that the current tax is ridiculously low (3rd lowest in the nation), that it hasn't been adjusted in over 30 years, and that (especially in this economy) everyone needs to pitch in to pay their fair share. If we have to say the $ will be a dedicated funding source for certain worthwhile programs in order to "justify" it further and get it passed, it makes sense to me that it should go for programs that minimize the cost of alcohol abuse to the state. You guys need to stop taking it so personally and being so offended by the implication that some people do indeed abuse your beloved micro brew. It is not a personal reflection on every micro brew aficionado's character.
You deride Kirchmeier's post as "rubbish" (right after moaning that Chuck was "going out of [his] way to diss [you] here", BTW. Ironic.) yet you both agree that a modest tax increase comparable to neighboring states' rates is acceptable. The only thing you disagree about is an exemption for small brewers. And if we disregard the false "cascading profit driven price increase" theory (as Chuck put it), small brewers will be able to pass along the cost of their tax in toto without pricing themselves out of the market.
And finally Jeff, you refused to respond when I brought this up on previous posts:
"Here's another interesting thing. It appears that there's no correlation between tax rates and per-capita consumption. ... Upshot: taxes don't appear to influence consumption." - Jeff Alworth, Beervana, February 18, 2009
It's a bit hypocritical to accuse Mark Kirchmeier of being deceptive, dishonest and guilty of subterfuge, when you refuse to acknowledge and explain your own statement isn't it? Please explain Jeff. If taxes don't influence consumption, how can a reasonable tax increase hurt anyone?
9:52 p.m.
Jun 3, '09
Bartender, well put! And one more point - Jeff says "why don't you mention Brian Butenschoen, the director of the Oregon Brewer's Guild? He's the guy fighting for local breweries. As I've said many times, I don't mind Bud paying more. I want to protect the Ninkasis." Widmer, Full Sail and Rock Bottom are all represented on the Brewers Guild board of directors and the Guild has yet to offer up any suggestion other than to keep the tax where it is. Jeff's not a brewer and whatever merits his idea may have mean nothing as long as the folks he's defending maintain the take no prisoners position. The Brewers Guild has yet to part ways with the big guys and those like the Widmers who are financially linked with the big guys.
12:58 a.m.
Jun 4, '09
Chuck Butcher would be useful here; I believe it was he who cited figures indicating THIRTY DOLLARS in state public health costs for every dollar of alcohol purchased in Oregon, about 3 times the rate for tobacco.
Why beer? Because wine and spirits pay a higher rate than beer, but the beer lobby has been able to keep their specific taxes low.
And let's look at Kirchmeier's figuring. He estimates a keg going from about $135 to $166, making his per-pint (I have no idea what Jeff's "12-ounce" argument refers to; Kirchmeier clearly uses a pint as his reference point) cost rise to the astronomical $1.33. For which he would profit over $2 at $3.50. He calculates the final markup as double the price of the tax...can someone explain why this is unreasonable?
As some have said, $3.50 is pretty cheap for a pint of beer these days. Most places sell it for $4 or more...yet apparently Krakow's is able to eke out a living for its owner. If $3.50 a pint is generally doable, then there's as much as 50 cents to a dollar or more of wiggle room in a pub's profitability that the more expensive guys aren't being honest about.
And this is a publican, who has to buy from a distributor who has to buy from a manufacturer. Widmer doesn't buy beer from itself, nor does it distribute it to itself and charge itself a premium. So there's not even the markup involved---why would the brothers have to raise their prices any more than 20 cents to cover the tax?
Would you rather pay for the 20c tax increase, or the 30-fold bite in not fairly recovering health care costs from the most-consumed type of alcohol in the state?
Jun 4, '09
With folks like Kurt Widmer doing the dirty work for Anheuser-Busch InBev (which has an ownership interest in Widmer’s iconic brewery),
This is inaccurate. I would like to know your source. It's frequently repeated. You just heard it and printed it, right? Jeff? We've a marketing arrangement with them, and a distribution arrangement. You know, like your Google banner ads.? Many of your articles carry Google banner ads. that directly contradict the posting content.
Retract, or in the future, when I see an anti-auto post, with a "Buy a Hummer" Google ad., I too will confuse a marketing arrangement with content, and accuse you of doing the legwork to get the Hummer brand in front of BO readers.
Or we could both get real and admit that marketing has destroyed all of our lives and we continue to pay the whore. Which is it? I guess if you see that extorted price as "mother's milk", she ain't a whore. You really can't see which end is driving, can you?
And I missed the thank-you to the posters in the first beer tax post, that yelled until you would finally listen about it being the condescending language in the bill's preamble and the exhorbitant increase, not the principle. You've come back with those mods and, VOILA, most those against are now for it and the rest clearly aren't listening. Rep. Cannon should give back the pay he took "crafting" that first piece of crap! He can keep the MADD donation he took, though.
If you wanted to take Widmer to task, then maybe using air conditioning to keep the temps right might be on the radar screen. The ale brewers use the natural temps. Widmer's kolsch become weissbier yeast requires low temps or it tastes like a woody, like a Stella D'Artois. The carbon footprint of a Widmer Hefeweizen v a Bridgeport IPA, for example is factors bigger.
This is why your base is on the wane, as much as the right's. All the big issues (like the AC) are glossed over, because there is no difference in your parties. That leaves you to fight about miniscule changes, and you wonder why the electorate aren't down wid it!
Checked out the Green Party platform the MEPs are running on? You are WAY behind.