Mayor Cory Booker,
Newark, NJ, cuts toilet paper from the city budget for public offices.
The link above does not lead to a single news source, but to a Bing list of various news sources that confirm the news itself. Therefore, there isn't
any single "title" for this submission. I do this so that no one can (honestly) accuse me of not providing coroborating sources to any kind of news
story...Pick & choose your sources at will.
New York Daily News
Watch out, Mr. Whipple, the mayor of Newark is putting the squeeze on toilet paper.
Mayor Cory Booker threatened to stop spending city funds on toilet paper as one of a string of "savage" measures to close a $70 million budget
"We're going to stop buying everything from toilet paper to printer paper," Booker said during a City Hall news conference in Newark Wednesday.
"Call me Mr. Scrooge, if you want, but there will be no Christmas decorations around the city."
Booker said the belt-tightening will commence on Aug. 2 with the closing of city pools and its popular Camp Watershed.
Ok, now I know there's a lot of people, including myself, who've been saying for a long time that most politicians are full of crap...But now our
economic woes are getting bad enough that they can't even clean themselves up after any more "outbreaks" of political BS...
Ok, now that I got my own silliness out of the way, the subject matter itself is still open for a more serious discussion (although there already was
& most likely will be other posters who may have some of their own silliness to get out too).
But there are a lot of serious ramifications that need to get out into the open for discussion, because toilet paper is only one
of the many
cutbacks that Mayor Booker is going to implement. One of the cutbacks he will be implementing includes public-use facilities, such as swimming pools &
Newark's own Camp Watershed. I'm not familiar with the area, but don't facilities such as this actually bring in public funding for the city,
through user-fees & such? How will the Mayor's cutbacks affect these facilities to keep drawing people in (& paying money to use)?
On the side of city employees, they'll have to start bringing their own toilet paper from home, just so they won't have to "hold it" (or risk
social embarrassment) all day!
When cities themselves suffer from cutbacks, does that not also imply that the whole State must "trickle down" with the necessary cutbacks? So why
should the States be having such a hard time? Personally, I would put the initial
blame on the ratification of the
(Clause 1 excerpted below), with the situation getting worse over time since
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each
Senator shall have one vote.
By turning the Senate into a popular (public) vote, does this not deprive the States from proper representation with the federal government? The
States are still being taxed by the feds, but they no longer have their own State Legislature voting for Senators! Is this not "taxation without
representation," one of the many faults of the English Monarchy that the American Colonists fought a war against?
According to the supporting documentation (such as congressional Journals & other sources), the 17th Amendment DID NOT clarify, alter, modify,
overturn or overrule Article 4, section 4
in any way, means, shape or form...Yet that's
the very same clause in the Constitution that establishes--
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
(bold emphasis is mine)
In the context & meaning of the word "Republican" used, it means "representative."
Think about it...The 17th Amendment directly violates
Article 4, Section 4 by depriving the State Governments any effective representation
within the level of national government! By precedent of the Law in America, any legislation that is not "in pursuance of" the Constitution is
automatically null & void as if it never existed...Not lawful, not enforcable & stricken from consideration. But Nnot only are the people being taxed
into poverty, but the States suffer from onerous taxation without even having the benefit of representation!
Why else do the incumbents in D.C. argue over "earmarks" for bringing money back into their States? Why else does Congress, on the whole, wind up
spending so much without having any real backing for the deficit (except by borrowing against the future
earnings of the nation)? It's not
merely the States that should be cutting back, but the federal government must cut back too...The States should be able to keep more of their own
money so as to use it for the public good on a more local
Then maybe, just maybe, stories like this could be relegated to the realm of "urban myths."