Another Article in The Leaf-Chronicle Today
Here is another article in the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle about the Tennessee Bottle Bill. This one presents the lobbying groups' view against the bill. The article starts by saying that the Bottle Bill is a "forced deposit on drink containers". Next it "essentially amounts to a new consumer tax". Then it is "simply a tax on consumers". So, which is it? A deposit? "Essentially a tax"? or "Simply a tax"? I would like to see the author, Mr. Jimmy Settle, actually fact check what these guys are saying because I know for a fact that the Tennessee Bottle Bill will not increase the cost of a case of beer by $1.92 as he has quoted a lobbyist as saying. Did he follow up with a breakdown of the $1.92? Shouldn't he also, at the minimum, report that $1.20 of that is deposits that you would get back unless you throw the bottles on the side of the road or in the garbage? There are plenty of other statements that are wrong, but I will end with this one: A lobbyist is quoted as saying, "A comprehensive litter program targeting all litter and not just beverage containers is the only proven method to decrease litter." The problem is that this is a flat out lie! Bottle Bills are a proven method to decrease litter by between 30% and 64%. There are plenty of government studies to support this. I would love to hear from this lobbyist what scientific studies support his side. Mr. Settle does quote our hero Marge Davis at TNBottleBill.Org so that the paper can claim to be unbiased, but the article is very biased against the Bottle Bill and reads almost like an editorial.
You can check out the article yourself at Bottle Bill decried as new consumer tax
I would love to see comments in the comments section.