Beaudreau to seek reelection

District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau announced Friday that he would seek reelection for a third term to the Gwinnett Board of Commissioners.  Beaudreau is last remaining commisioner from Gwinnett's fiscal debacle in 2009 as well as the socialized garbage fiasco.  (Though Shirley Lasseter joined the board in January 2009 after her election in November 2008, many decisions had largely been made that would result in the budget deficit.  As such, I cannot hold her as accountable as the remainder of the board members of that time.)  The other commissioners at that point - aside from Lasseter - either resigned or did not stand for reelection, thus denying voters the opportunity to fire them for a job poorly done.  Beaudreau is the last chance for voters to hold the Bannister board accountable at the polls.

Beaudreau, like any good politician, will attempt to spin away any responsibility he had in those messes and, for socialized garbage, attempt to defend his primary role in trampling on your economic freedom.  And, to be fair, at least for the fiscal issues, Commissioner Beaudreau often did have a more fiscally responsible voice than did his fellow board members.  He also had a more open-minded view of the economic opportunities for revamping Briscoe Field for commercial aviation.  However, his staunch support for socialized garbage is, alone, "grounds for termination."  Couple this position with a record that was routinely hostile to private property rights as he played favorites to certain categories of landowners. Taken altogether, the time has come for the voters in District 3 to kindly advise Mr. Beaudreau to focus on his sales career.  As you hear the spin from the Beaudreau campaign, I would urge you to review my commentary on his tenure for a refresher on the real record of Commissioner Mike Beaudreau.

The question now turns to who will stand up to our next District 3 commissioner?  We need a candidate who will stand up and defend property rights for all Gwinnettians, not just special interests that align themselves with an elected official.  We need a commissioner who will continue to be open-minded regarding opportunities for Briscoe Field.  We need a candidate who, even if he or she cannot reverse the indefensible socialized garbage contract, will sincerely promise residents that he or she will never disrespect our economic freedom of choice by supporting such an arrangement.  In other words, we need a true conservative to replace Mike Beaudreau.  I am optimistic that, so long as District 3 voters remember the recent track record of the Bannister commission, that, like Barack Obama, Mike Beaudreau will face an uphill slog to retain his seat.

Mike Beaudreau Press Release

Beaudreau to run for Re-Election

Mike Beaudreau announced today that he would run for a third term as Gwinnett County Commissioner in District 3. 

“The last few years have been very difficult for the county and many of its residents,” Beaudreau said.  “Because of the economic downturn, the Board of Commissioners was forced to make difficult decisions about spending and taxes.  My conservative leadership and opposition to tax increases helped get us to where we are today, with our top credit rating intact, and with the lowest unemployment rate of metro Atlanta’s core counties.  Now that we see signs of improvement on the horizon, I want to continue to help move the county in the right direction.”

If he is reelected, Commissioner Beaudreau will continue to promote economic development efforts to grow the county’s tax base and will continue his record of tight fiscal management of the county budget.  He also hopes to build on his seven year track record of expanding transparency in county government.

Mike Beaudreau was elected in 2004 as Gwinnett’s youngest County Commissioner.  During his tenure, he has worked tirelessly on issues important to residents; he remains committed to improving the quality of life by passing stricter development regulations, making government more transparent by promoting ethics reform, and making government more efficient by focusing on key county services while keeping property taxes as low as possible.

Due to reapportionment, District 3 boundaries have changed a bit.  It now includes portions of the Braselton and Chateau Elan areas in the northern part of the county, and still includes Centerville, Snellville, Grayson, Loganville and Dacula.

AJC focuses on "tumult" of socialized garbage vote

In an article posted by the AJC about yesterday's socialized garbage vote by the Gwinnett County Commission, the paper focused on the "public tumult" as the public gave the commission an "earful" regarding the ordinance.  I am glad that the AJC did not gloss over this part of the meeting.  The disgust by Gwinnett citizens over this unAmerican ordinance should be publicized.

What really irritates me is Mike Beaudreau's cavalier attitude toward economic freedom:

County Commissioner Mike Beaudreau, one of the biggest proponents of implementing a county-wide plan, said there were more than a dozen public meetings held to gauge public sentiment. The overwhelming majority, he said, favored a unified plan.

What Mike does not seem to get is that my economic freedom is not subject to majority rule or public sentiment.  It is fine if there is a subset of county residents that want the government involved in their business, holding their hand as they take out their garbage.  Even if support for the ordinance were  as "overwhelming" as Mike suggests - something I highly doubt - that does not given those residents the right to take away my economic freedom. For this alleged majority to get its way, the county must trample on my rights, which is flat-out WRONG.   That is the nature of rights - your rights end when they interfere with the rights of someone else.

Beaudreau's defense of this ordinance shows that, as with property rights, he has limited regard for protecting the rights of his constituents.  That tells me all I need to know about whether he is qualified to replace John Linder in the United States Congress - absolutely not!  What if the majority wants government-run healthcare?  Would Mike support that and force socialized medicine on everyone to please those who cannot take responsibility for themselves and, instead, ask the government to micromanage their lives?  The issues in Washington are far more critical and sweeping than a local solid waste ordinance (though all violations of our freedoms by government are important).  Mike Beaudreau, on the eve of a potential candidacy for Congress, is showing us precisely why he is not fit to fill the shoes of a true conservative like John Linder.  Beaudreau, along with the rest of the Gang of Five, shouldn't be re-elected as county commissioner, much less as United States Congressman.  The voters would be wise to keep this in mind should Mike enter the 7th District race.

Commission unanimously approves socialized garbage

The Gwinnett County Commission has completed the process of ignoring their constituents.  The board consisting of five RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) has voted to usurp your economic freedom by approving socialized garbage yet again.  Despite great public protest against the first solid waste ordinance, they moved forward and thumbed their collective noses at the citizens of Gwinnett and passed a new ordinance that is virtually identical to the first ordinance.  The only substantive difference appears to be the elimination of the "garbage police."  While this is laudable, that hardly makes the rest of the ordinance acceptable.  I thought at least Shirley Lasseter might not be in favor of this unAmerican measure, but she joined with the rest of the board in inserting the government into your personal business.

Several people addressed the board at the meeting today.  They made the point several times that the board was ignoring the people of Gwinnett.  Debbie Dooley of Gwinnett FreedomWorks promoted a protest on a date to be determined in the parking lot - and this is ironic - of Gwinnett Taxpayers Stadium (aka Coolray Field) in the near future.  Another speaker threatened a recall.  Yet another promised that should any of the existing commissioners run for "dogcatcher" they would be expected to have an answer for the voters as to why they supported socialized garbage.  Apparently, the board either does not get it or they just don't care about you, the citizen of Gwinnett.

That leaves you with one recourse for those commissioners that want to serve in elected office in the future - VOTE THEM OUT.  Any politician that so blatantly ignores the voters has no business holding public office. I urge you to keep this in mind whenever you attend a campaign event for any of the commissioners or vote in a race in which they are running.  They had a chance to remedy what was a huge mistake when they adopted socialized garbage the first time.  They did not.  Now, they should be rewarded by being removed from their office at the earliest opportunity.

The Gwinnett Commission has completely ignored you!

EDIT (2 March 10): I stated below that the audience could not address the commission during the meeting.  I am watching the meeting right now and the audience does have the opportunity to address the board.  The first two speakers are grilling the commissioners - way to go!

Just when you thought it was safe to take your garbage to the curb, there stands the Gwinnett County Commission waiting at the end of your driveway to "help" you take out your garbage.  That's right - socialized garbage is back. Tomorrow, the board will consider a new version of the ordinance that looks almost identical to the old version.  What does that tell us?  The Gwinnett County Commission did not listen to a word that was said to them - loudly and clearly - at the various meetings and hearings in the last 15 months.  They have effectively brushed you aside and will do exactly what they intended to do all along - micromanage your life!

The most substantial difference between the previous ordinance and the current iteration is of little real importance to the average citizen: Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful will not be administering the program.  Whew!  That makes me feel so much better knowing that someone else will deny my economic freedom and tell me I am not capable of handing my own affairs.  At the end of the day, the county will still mandate that you must have garbage service.  The county will still tell you what company you must have as your garbage hauler.  They will still bill you for the service as part of your tax bill.  The only substantive item that appears to be different is that recycling is not mandatory.  Exactly how is this different than the socialistic program the board attempted to foist upon us last year?  In a nutshell- IT'S NOT!

Our commissioners are thumbing their noses at us.  They are saying we listened and we ignored virtually everything you told us.  Why?  Because we are politcians and we know how to live your life better than you do!  And these are supposed to be five REPUBLICANS, one of whom may want to go to Washington as a Congressman!

Unfortunately, this will ordinance will pass because this commission is not accountable to you.  Two members of the board, District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti and District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly, are not running for reelection.  They can vote for the ordinance and not have to worry about facing the music from the voters.  That means there only needs to be one other vote to pass socialized garbage.  If Commission Chairman Charles Bannister has already decided not to seek a third term in 2012, he would be just as unaccountable as Nasuti and Kenerly.  I suspect he will not run again, but only he knows for sure.  The other likely source for the third vote is Mike Beaudreau.  Whether he runs for Congress or not, Beaudreau will likely run for a higher office in 2012 given that his interest in Congressman John Linder's congressional seat confirms my suspicions that Beaudreau is aiming politically higher than the county commission.  Granted, running for any office from within Gwinnett would force him to face voters in some way should he vote for socialized garbage. However, if his next race is for a different office, that would provide some insulation from voter angst over socialized garbage.  That leaves Shirley Lasseter who likely will run for relection in 2012.  With a third vote coming from Bannister or Beaudreau, Lasseter would be afforded political cover by being able to vote against the ordinance knowing that it will still pass.  (To be fair to Lasseter, the original socialized garbage ordinance was passed before she joined the Commission.  Thus, she may truly be opposed to the measure.)

The board will vote on this unAmerican ordinance tomorrow.  Conveniently, these sessions do not allow the public to address the commission, so you will not have the opportunity to remind the board that their support of socialized garbage is unacceptable.  Ironically, that is very appropriate given that they chose to ignore you when you did have the opportunity to speak.  Who needs Democrats when you have Republicans like this bunch?

Gwinnett residents continue to call for choice in garbage provider

The final community forum on Gwinnett's garbage service was held this past Saturday in Suwanee.  Continuing with a common theme that began late last year, county residents continue to demand freedom of choice in choosing their garbage service provider.  Just as Americans across the country are rising up and speaking loudly against Obamacare's government control of healthcare, Gwinnettians continue to loudly say no to government dictating with whom we must do business at the local level as well.  Gwinnett's commissioners are already on thin ice with voters after their poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars highlighted by the recent budget mess.  If they again try to cram socialized garbage down our throats after the overwhelming uproar against their solid waste ordinance, I would not be surprised if voters begin seriously exploring recall initiatives rather than waiting until the next election to bounce them from office.  To this point, the recall sentiment bubbling in Gwinnett has been fairly muted, but if commissioners continue to show callous disregard for citizens of this county, that bubbling could quickly rise to a boiling point.

Beaudreau garbage panel - a committee of "yes men?"

Earlier this month, Commissioner Mike Beaudreau's garbage committee held it's final hearing.  The panel hopes to present its findings to the Gwinnett County Commission this week.  Unfortunately, despite loud voices against major tenets of socialized garbage, reports are suggesting that the committee will, for all intents and purposes, sign off on the heinous ordinance that so many Gwinnett residents have made clear that they do not support.

Socialized Garbage Tenet 1 - Mandatory pickup - The committee is reportedly in agreement on mandatory pickup at residences.  They may throw a bone to residents in the form of an opt-out clause for those with access to other disposal options (e.g., a small business owner who has a dumpster at the business).  I do not have a major problem with this if there is a legitimate dumping problem.  I still feel, however, that the county could better use resources wasted on its "Quality of Life" task force to track down those who are dumping illegally.  According to committee member Mack Perry, "...the illegal dumping isn't coming from people who have trash service."  If the county knows this, they can go after those who are guilty and not punish all residents with a government mandate.  

Socialized Garbage Tenet 2 - No Choice in Garbage Hauler - Residents were very clear that they wanted choice in selecting their garbage hauler.  This is one of the most egregious aspects of the ordinance.  However, despite there being little doubt about the feeling of the citizens, the committee, according to the Gwinnett Views blog, is considering an assignment of providers to regions, thus resulting in "one hauler, one neighborhood."  What part of choice does the committee not understand?  We do not want Mike Beaudreau and the rest of the commission to select our garbage hauler!  Reducing neighborhood truck traffic is a red herring used to justify substitution of a government decision for your free choice.  Rather than listen to the residents and respect their strong support of economic freedom of choice, the committee may be set to sign off on a second aspect of socialized garbage.

Socialized Garbage Tenet 3 - Garbage bill included on property tax bill - Another unpopular component of socialized garbage was the inclusion of garbage collection charges on property tax bills.  Here again, the committee may be leaning toward recommending just such a payment mechanism.  Gwinnett Views opines:

The majority of the MBSCT believe the only way to make sure that all of us residents are toeing the line is to put the trash bill on our tax bill.

I am sure that officials will try to justify this requirement by arguing that it simplifies their bill collection responsibilities.  Sorry, but I am not here to serve the government, the government is here to serve the citizens.  Trading our freedom of choice to save government the burden of dealing with those who do not pay is not an acceptable trade.  

Three pillars of socialized garbage, three thumbs up from the Mike Beaudreau committee.  Very interesting given resident opposition and Mack Perry's comment on his blog:

As a member of the committee I think I should tell you that this is not just a committee of a bunch of “Yes Men and Women” who are giving lip service to the commissioners.

Really?  Not a committee of "Yes Men and Women?"  Could have fooled me.  

I could live with mandatory pickup and even billing on my tax statement.  What I cannot quietly accept is the commission telling me who I have to use for garbage service.  Had socialized gone through in January, I would have been assigned to Waste Pro and I saw enough from that company during recent months to know that I would almost certainly not do business with them voluntarily.  Mike Beaudreau and his fellow commissioners should not be able to tell me I must use them.  Much of Gwinnett apparently agrees with me, but the Beaudreau committee apparently did not pay attention to this.

One bit of good news is that the county may be about to agree to an extension of the current garbage system (also known as a competitive market) through the end of the year.  While we cannot be sure that a recrafted solid waste ordinance won't look substantially the same as socialized garbage, at least we can go nine more months without the Gwinnett County Commission sticking its nose in our affairs.  Another advantage may be the reticence of commissioners Bert Nasuti and Kevin Kenerly to back the unpopular aspects of socialized garbage on the eve of potential reelection bids in 2010.

Garbage panel holds second meeting

Commission Mike Beaudreau's citizen advisory panel for garbage held its second meeting Thursday night at GJAC in Lawrenceville.  The comments heard from the public and the topics discussed by the committee seem to be the same ones we have been hearing in recent months.  What surprised me most was the fact that the discussions of the committee were slated at one point to be done in private!

“This was, in the beginning intended to be a closed-off debate,” said committee chairman Mike Royal, “but I don’t want to go down that road. I don’t want the perception of it.”

Several committee members agreed, and a measure was adopted to provide for 45 minutes of public comments, then deliberations in full view of the public.

At least someone in an official capacity in this garbage debate has some perspective.  I cannot imagine the uproar if this committee had closed its discussions to the public.  I think the format chosen balances openness, access and the need to for discussion among committee members.

I must take exception with one matter the panel apparently settled.

One issue the panel appeared to resolve was that putting the issue to a county-wide vote would be impractical. There was little hope, the committee concluded, of developing an ordinance that a majority of voters wouldn’t find something wrong with.

What a weak reason for not letting the citizens vote on this mess.  Perhaps the majority of voters would still find fault with any proposal.  However, I believe that, if you put the current ordinance up against a watered-down version with the most egregious aspects removed (e.g., no hauler choice, mandatory recycling, exorbitant fines), the law as passed by the commission would crash and burn in a landslide.  

I urge the Gwinnett County Commission to have the courage to step up and pose such a question to voters.  Leadership does not mean that you are always popular.  You won't satisfy everyone, but I would think you would go a long way to cooling many of the hot tempers in our county.  

The next meeting will be Thursday, February 5 in Snellville at a time and place to be determined.  Just a thought, is it too much to ask that the times and locations be made a week in advance?  Also, I read something previously that indicated these meetings would be announced on the county website.  I just looked and cannot find information on either the meeting schedule or the members of the panel.  If someone has a link to point folks in the right direction, please leave a comment below.

Surplus of recyclables

The economic downturn is depressing demand for recycled marterials due to decreased global manufacturing activities.  In general, this is not a Gwinnett specific phenomenon, but this situation does pose an interesting question when recycling is not just something that citizens are encouraged to do, but rather is something that is mandated by law.

There has been much publicity that the new Gwinnett solid waste ordinance requires recycling and puts teeth in that requirement with the threat of a $500 fine for those who do not comply.  In situations where there is no demand for recyclables, can the government simply choose to not enforce this aspect of the ordinance?  Is looking the other way legal?  If not and government cannot turn off the flow of unmarketable recycled materials, then what does this do to the cost of service to county residents?

In responding to the county's requirements for expanded curbside pickup of recyclables, the garbage haulers no doubt projected revenue as part of their business plans from the sale of these materials.  What happens if that revenue dries up and the haulers cannot scale back on recyclable collection?  All of a sudden there is a hole in their revenue stream. Anyone want to guess who would likely be required to fill that hole?  Exactly.  County residents.

This potential scenario goes to illustrate a practical impact of inflexible government mandates over and above the fact that government restriction of our economic freedom is unacceptable.  Yet another reason, the Gwinnett County Commission must allow for flexibility in this ordinance.

New web site to promote socialized garbage

Gwinnett View is reporting that a new website has been launched to advocate for Gwinnett's socialized garbage plan.  According to the post, Supporttheplan.net was "setup by a marketing firm from Jacksonville, Florida."  A quick WhoIs search turns up that the site was registered by the Dalton Agency in Jacksonville, FL.  The Dalton Agency's website lists services in the area of "Public Relations +."  Sounds like backers of the waste plan have come to the right place, because, if any local iniative needed some serious PR, socialized garbage would be it!

I checked out SupportthePlan.net and, as you might expect, it is a litany of the same tired, non-justifications we have been hearing for months.  The site has a green color scheme and many of its reasons why socialized garbage is so good for us lean on the environmental boogeyman of "greenhouse gas emissions."  Sorry, but I am not sold enough on -cue the scary music - global warming, to voluntarily cede my economic freedom to the government.

Let's take a look at some of the specific arguments of SupporthePlan.net:

With fewer waste trucks on the roads, we'll experience a reduction in fuel and greenhouse gases, resulting in quieter, safer, and less congested neighborhoods - not to mention less wear and tear on the roads.

We hear this one often.  It appears to be a central pillar of support for this program, as the county even planted this idea with their water bill stuffers advertising community forums for the new waste ordinance.  I have shown the triviality of this point regarding truck traffic in neighborhoods, but I want to address the claim that the program results in fewer truck miles.

I started to prepare an engineering-style analysis of the reduced traffic claim.  I opted against this, because, though I can make some broad assumptions, I certainly do not have anywhere near enough data to do a fair review of this claim.  (Be glad - your eyes would probably have glazed over!)  What I will do instead is simply apply common sense to this claim.  

I agree there would be some reduction in truck traffic under the program as designed.  Having a single hauler would allow for more efficient truck routing which would increase the effective daily per-truck capacity.  What we do not know is the magnitude of any such increase.  If you assume that all current haulers are maximizing their current daily per-truck capacit, the efficiency gains may be marginal.  Recall, however, that socialized garbage requires that all homes participate in garbage collection.  According to SupportthePlan.net, 20,000 homes do not have garbage service.  Thus, a nontrivial amount of volume has to be added to the system.  Depending on the magnitude of efficiency enhancements, the incerase in number of pickups from the new customers would negate some part of the optimized routing.  I would hope an engineering study was done somewhere along the way to quantify the expected gains.  Even if so, the point, however, is not the specifics of how much inefficiency can be wrung out of the system.  

There are many industries could be made more efficient if competition were eliminated and the industry socialized.  So why don't we  simply socialize the computer industry?  Do we really need Apple and Microsoft, Intel and AMD, and Dell and HP duplicating efforts?  Why not just consolidate everything down into ApSoftInAmDeH?  Wouldn't that be more efficient, cut costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  Why don't we?  Because in America we embrace the free market, we embrace capitalism, we embrace competition.  Competition is what drives innovation.  Competition benefits the customer.  Perhaps garbage collection is not an industry we typical associate with innovation, but the principles of competition remain unchanged.  If the government wants to address business inefficiencies, I propose they start with themselves.  Why do we need cities across Gwinnett with their own police departments, planning departments, elected officials and human services?  Gwinnett County provides all of those at a county level and the cities is are just duplicating the same.  Bet we won't see any proposals like this coming soon.

The new plan is the result of three years of preparation and input from over 5,000 residents and hundreds of organizations through public hearings, civic, home owners association meetings, community forums, and surveys. Two-thirds of residents indicated they would trade choice of a collection company for the ability to recycle more.

So, 5000 people can veto my economic freedom of choice?  I don't think so.  At least, they should not be able to, though governments do their level best to do it all the time.  Also, the claim that two-thirds of residents indicated anything is disproven by their own statement.  Obviously, two-thirds of the entire county did not indicate anything.  Assuming they mean two-thirds of the 5000 people who provided feedback, even that is immaterial.  Who appointed those 5000 people to speak for me or anyone else but themselves?  The only people who represent me in Gwinnett County is Charles Bannister and Mike Beaudreau; we had an election to make that determination.  To identify the group that would provide feedback on the waste ordinance, we had a water bill stuffer.  

The plan will more than double recycling, from the current 10 percent to at least 23 percent as residents will be able to recycle 35 items.

This could be achieved without socializing the entire system.  In fact, "some haulers have said they would be happy to develop a more expansive recycling program."  Another option would be to pursue market-based solutions to the same end.

The current average price for garbage and recycling service in Gwinnett is $21-$24 per month. When the program is fully implemented, residents will have the convenience of paying $17.86 as a monthly service fee.

Some Gwinnettians have already told the commission that socialized garbage would increase their costs.

SupportthePlan.net also prepared an old plan/new plan comparison.  

Old Plan: Trash cans at the curb every day of the week; New Plan: Same-day collection of garbage, recycling, bulk waste & white goods = new trash cans at curb only one day a week & cleaner neighborhoods

Some folks don't like seeing garbage cans on the curb.  This is justification for stomping on the American ideal of competition and economic freedom of choice?  This point should go over well with those homeowners associations that want to put liens on neighbors' properties because they don't like the house color or the grass is an 1/8" too tall or they don't like the landscaping design.

Old Plan: Increased litter & illegal dumping; New Plan: A cleaner Gwinnett County due to significantly less illegal dumping & littering.

So, the morning after socialized garbage starts, I will never see litter in Gwinnett again?  Yeah.  Ok.  Back here in reality, dumping may improve, but people are not littering because they don't have garbage service.  People are littering because they are lazy and inconsiderate.  

"I really would rather not litter, but I do not have garbage service so I really don't have a choice but to throw this McDonald's bag out my window as I drive down the road."

Old Plan: Hydraulic fluid and garbage leaking onto our streets and roadways from poorly maintained trucks; New Plan: Newer, better-maintained trucks will reduce pollution through lower emissions

I just hate it when I come home and find that a bag of garbage has "leaked" out of a truck in front of my house.  Someone was really reaching with this one!  Why would socialized garbage haulers automatically have a significantly better maintenance program for their trucks than haulers currently competing in Gwinnett?  

Old Plan: There are 20,000 homes without garbage service; New Plan: Fairness = all homeowners will have service & will pay the same rate 

A socialistic argument for a socialized plan.  Very appropriate.  In America, we promote equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.  This point should resonate with the Obama voters.

As you can see, there is not much at SupportthePlan.net that we have not heard about socialized garbage.  There are certainly no compelling justifications for Gwinnett County to strip away our economic freedom of choice.  Despite the loud demands from constituents that the commission not move forward with the plan as-is, the site does nothing but parrot the plan almost exactly as it was enacted.  

At least the site gets one thing right: drop the fine for not recycling.  Unfortunately, that modification simply does not go far enough.

Creative market solution to increase recycling

In an AJC article summarizing the socialized garbage saga, amid the well-worn storyline, I came across a very interesting nugget.

Republic Services, with the county’s largest customer base, has announced a new program whereby customers will receive “reward points” for every pound of material they recycle. These points can be redeemed at local retailers.

This is exactly the kind of solution that should be implemented to increase the level of recycling in Gwinnett! No one is forced to recycle nor is anyone punished if they don't.  Rather, residents are offered incentives to choose to recycle.  I cannot say how effective this program will be.  There may well be better ways to incent a desired behavior, but the key point here is that the free market, yet again, addressed a problem in a far better manner than did the heavy fist of government.  

Such a shame that, though free enterprise has a track of such success compared to the vast majority of government programs and mandates, our country has naively elected a president and Congress that is hostile to so many free market solutions, opting instead for the oppressiveness of big government.