The St. Catharines Standard’s Dec.27, 2008 editorial was titled “The nanny state ends the buck-a-beer trend”:
“Just in time for the busy holiday season, and very quietly, the province killed any brewery's claims that it is peddling its wares for a buck a beer.
The minimum price that can be charged for a case of 24 bottles of beer in Ontario is now $25.60, including deposit, an increase of 6.7 per cent approved by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in October.
An increase of $1.60 per case isn't debilitating by any stretch, particularly when the product in question is a luxury like a case of beer.
But the optics surrounding this decision warrant a deeper discussion about our province and society.
It is deeply concerning that this price hike from the LCBO, on a recommendation from the Ministry of Finance, was carried out in the shadows.
The ministry sent a memo recommending the price hike to the LCBO meeting of Oct. 15. Within 30 minutes, and with minimal discussion, the increase was approved.
It took effect Nov. 24.
The price floor also applies to coolers and low-alcohol spirits.
But outside of the minutes recorded for that board meeting, there was no public notification of the pending change in the price of a case of beer.
The LCBO said it doesn't issue news releases regarding price changes, which is curious operating procedure for a customer-service driven business.
It's even more odd when you consider that business is owned by the taxpayers of this province
This decision was made out of the glare of the media spotlight, and little rationale has been offered justifying the decision.
It will boost the bottom lines of the breweries and the province, but hits consumers struggling in a tough economy.
But just as troubling as the circumstances surrounding the decision is the spectre of the nanny state lurking behind the need for a minimum price for a case of beer.
The LCBO established a "social responsibility" mandate in 1993, and uses the price of its products as a tool for controlling alcohol consumption.
The implication is clear: The average person can't be trusted to drink responsibly if the price is set too low.
In other words, the government knows what is best for you, and will impose its will by charging more for the products it sells.
This hike in the price of beer is just another way for the government to social engineer the behaviour of the citizenry, and that should not be the role of a democratic government.”
Decisions, made without rationale, out of the glare of the spotlight, by a majority Liberal government? Just add this to the list of Liberal edicts throughout the unaccountable reign of McGuinty The Magnificent, and his elitist MPP’s, such as Lord of St. Catharines, Good Ole Jimbo Bradley. [McGuinty's incompetent Liberals continued on their furtive ways, culminating with their infamous G20 secret law in the summer of 2010, which was later deemed by Ontario's ombudsman as being most likely unconstitutional!!]
The Liberal gods are all about imposing what is “best” upon the lessser mortals. There is nothing “odd” about that. Liberals portray themselves as saviours of a helpless humanity. The best thing, for Liberals, is that they earn their living by spending our money – for our own good!
Nannies such as Liberal statist and health-care monopolist Jim Bradley truly believe that only they have the divine ability to "social engineer the behaviour of the citizenry", because, after all, the average person “can’t be trusted” to make responsible decisions, you see. (What is odd is that this editorial did not mention, nor offer any comments from, the local MPP, Jim Bradley!)
Liberals pander to the so-called great unwashed proletariat, ingratiating themselves as protectors and providers of a Grand Utopia. Big Brother McGuinty’s manipulative Liberals have specialized in bans of all sorts. Jim Bradley knows about that too, with his cell-phone and car-pool edicts and his idiotic (typically out-of-touch) young driver’s restrictions (which took a 150,000-name Facebook petition to overturn…which then begs the question, is that all it takes to change Liberal policy, a 150,000-name web petition?! How fully thought-out was that policy edict, if it was so easily dismantled? Are backtracking Grits simply foundering and out-of-touch? Would the Liberals similarly acquiesce to a call from 150,000 citizens to allow health-care payer/provider choice in Ontario? Or would the Liberals treat that differently?)
When it comes to further articles about Nanny-State Liberals, will the Standard keep the sentiments found in this editorial in mind, as future issues arise similarly in the Liberal’s nanny-state health-care monopoly, as well?
It’s bad enough that Jim Bradley and his meddling Liberal elitists decided to increase the price of beer in their alcohol monopoly; but the Standard might consider what its editorial response would be if Bradley’s Liberals decided next that - for our 'own good' (naturally!) - only one kind of beer will be allowed in Ontario!
After all, OHIP is nothing more than a government-run monopoly, same as the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) government-run liquor monopoly; so as with state-run health-care, less choice and more government-control is better, right?!
[McGuinty's health-monopoly ought to be honestly rebranded as the HCBO - Health Control Board of Ontario - to accurately reflect its true statist nature and purpose.]
It’s pathetic that Ontarians have been trained to suckle at Nanny Jim Bradley’s magnanimous proverbial Liberal teat, and seemingly cannot be weaned off their dependence on duplicitous Liberal promises and elitist Liberal ideology.