Should the Federal Government Try to Curb Obesity?

/PRNewswire/ -- The First Lady and the Surgeon General are trying to rally Americans to fight against the "epidemic" of obesity. Perhaps they will inspire many to follow their leadership by example. Otherwise, the role of the federal government in curbing obesity is questionable, write economists Michael Marlow and Alden Shiers of California Polytechnic State University.

The government's tools are taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, bans on soft drinks in schools, regulations forcing restaurants to post calorie counts, and government-funded motivational programs.

In an article in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Marlow and Shiers argue that these methods are ineffective or even counterproductive.

Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks doubled between 1960 and 1980, a period when obesity rates were stable, and has been declining recently. Taxes are more likely to affect the behavior of casual consumers, who are more price sensitive, than of heavy consumers. States with strong restrictive policies on soft drinks in schools have no better obesity statistics than those with no such policies. Calorie labeling laws do not cause consumers to order lower-calorie meals.

The idea of funneling "sin tax" revenues into government programs to discourage unhealthy behavior has been tried with tobacco taxes. Roughly 10 percent of tobacco tax revenue flows into smoking-control programs--which are not very effective--and the rest is used for unrelated government programs.

"We predict government intervention will make obesity worse as it crowds out market-based solutions that effectively tie weight loss to personal responsibility, higher wages, and lower insurance premiums," write Marlow and Shiers.

"The main effect of the campaign will be to extract more money from taxpayers and to expand government."

-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage

Rep. Tsongas Has Her Choice of Health Care, but What about the Little People?

TT Note: Members of Congress have their choice of health care. Does Rep. Tsongas really think the current health care reform bill will increase the choices for Americans? Does she really think the current health care reform bill will strengthen private health care?

Hmmm. Government exchange provision will provide any private insurance company? Gee, that's not what the White House said.

Yes. The system needs reworking-- but not by government mandates of an one payer system.




-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Majority of Federal Workforce Concerned About Meeting Public's Expectations for Economic Stimulus Program

TT Note: Oh, that wonderful stimulus package that we had to have right now or the sky would fall. Well, let's see. Unemployment is higher than what the administration said it would be with the passage of the wonderful stimulus package. Now, even government employees are "concerned" and "overwhelmed" that it just may not be what Chicken Little proclaimed.

/PRNewswire/ -- According to a new study by Government Business Council (GBC), the research division of Government Executive Media Group, most federal executives are not optimistic that their agencies will be able to achieve all that the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (ARRA) has promised to taxpayers.

Federal managers report that they are focusing their agency's efforts to contribute to the ARRA objectives of saving and creating jobs and jumpstarting the economy, but that they are doing so with uncertainty. Specifically, the majority of federal managers -- 54% -- report that they are "overwhelmed" or "anxious" about the ARRA requirements and the management of ARRA so far.

The survey, conducted in May 2009, captures the views of 333 randomly selected federal managers on the implementation of ARRA. According to the study, most federal managers expect their agencies to have success in disbursing stimulus funding but believe that the tracking and reporting of those funds, to meet accountability and transparency standards, will be more difficult.

Despite being uncertain, managers do seem hopeful about ARRA, however, as 40% feel that the program could serve as a catalyst to further changes in how government works, possibly resulting in improving the public's view of government.

"Our research indicates that federal managers are committed to the goals of ARRA but are concerned that they may not have the resources to be fully successful," stated Bryan Klopack, Director, Government Business Council.

GBC will present a free webinar on the study on July 16, 2009 at 2 p.m. More information on the study and webinar can be found at www.govexec.com/gbc/.

"Government Business Council leads the way in tapping into the minds of federal managers to understand their most pressing concerns," commented Matt Dunie, General Manager, President, Government Executive Media Group. "By focusing on understanding the challenges facing today's federal leaders, GBC is able to identify where opportunities may exist for the private sector to provide mission-critical expertise and assistance."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Amid Democrat Division on Health Care, House GOP Unites Behind Better Solutions to Expand Access, Lower Costs

TT Note: These stories are quite disturbing. What I am seeing is a push to increase my taxes for the healthcare I already enjoy, and quite possibly having to give up my healthcare for what the Washington bean counters say is best for me. Take a stand America and let your representatives know your wishes on this subject.

Anyone watching the weekend news shows noticed a very clear trend: Democrats in Washington are all over the map about what to do on health care. Take a look:


ON A “PUBLIC PLAN,” WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE:

- On CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) predicted, “I don’t think the votes are there.”
- Yet on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Biden insisted, “[The President] does want a public plan.”

ON A PLAN TO FINANCE A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER BY CUTTING HEALTH CARE DEDUCTIONS:

- On ABC’s This Week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressed the President’s renewed support for “shaving” health care deductions.
- Sec. Sebelius made this assertion even as This Week host George Stephanopoulos reminded her, “All the major leaders on the Finance Committees and the Ways and Means Committee have said that’s not the way they want to go.”

ON A PLAN TO BANKROLL HEALTH CARE “REFORM” BY TAXING BENEFITS:

- On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said, “This is unnecessary.”
- Yet on Meet the Press, Vice President Biden left the door open to this tax hike. When asked if the President wouldn’t sign a bill that taxed Americans’ health care benefits, the Vice President responded, “I didn’t say that.”

As Democrats try to sort this out amongst themselves, House Republicans are moving forward with common-sense solutions that will reduce costs, expand access, and increase the quality of care in a way that America can afford. Led by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the House GOP’s and his Health Care Reform Solutions Group is crafting a plan to:

- Expand access to affordable, quality care regardless of pre-existing conditions;
- Protect Americans from being forced into a government-run plan, making certain that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats;
- Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, while giving all Americans the freedom to choose the plan that best meets their needs; and
- Reform medical liability rules to block junk lawsuits from driving up health care costs for families and small businesses.

The disagreements among Democrats on health care are a reflection of the Democratic leadership’s insistence on rushing legislation without a clear understanding of what the plan will do, who it will impact, and how it will be financed. In reality, health care reform is too important to get wrong. House Republicans believe that to make health care more affordable and accessible, it cannot deny care, raise taxes, and allow bureaucrats – rather than doctors and patients – to make key health care decisions. And their health care solutions are a reflection of that. Rather than wrangling with one another over a government-run plan, isn’t it time for Democrats to reach out to Republicans in support of a health care reform plan that works?

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

The Debt Highway

TT Note: Wow. This video really puts the current government spending into perspective. I know I'm not comfortable with the speed at which we are going. How about you?



-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Proposed E-Cigarette Ban Pushed In The Name Of America's Health Actually A Backdoor Boost To Pharmaceutical Companies

TT Note: I've been watching this debate with interest. If our government is so very concerned with the safety of these electronic cigarettes, then shouldn't our government also be so very concerned with the safety of traditional cigarettes? Seems just a tad bit confusing, doesn't it?

/24-7 / -- Our leading health groups are marching a parade against newly marketed e-cigarettes. This parade is lead by the backdoor politician, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). This seemingly health conscious senator, who has taken well over $100,000 from the pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation products, is trying to ban a product that offers none of the carcinogens of traditional tobacco cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes vaporize a water-based solution that gives the user the sensation of smoking while emitting only a light water vapor. This eliminates the public concern of secondhand smoke as well as cutting out all the carcinogens associated with tobacco and the chemicals used in tobacco cigarette production.

Senator Lautenberg claims the FDA should run extensive testing on these products to "verify" their safety, but many are concerned that stance is contrary to the American principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Many doctors believe that halting this far less harmful smoking alternative would, ironically, save the pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation products billions of dollars a year.

A few people have spoken up for e-cigarettes, most notably Chair of the Tobacco Control Group for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, Dr. Joel L. Nitzkin, who has stated his vigorous opposition of Senator Lautenberg's proposals. He and many other reasonable individuals are convinced that it is harmful to public health to ban a product that is by default far less dangerous than its traditional counterpart and put what amounts to a government seal of approval on the more dangerous product. Not only that, but many complain that Senator Lautenberg is not a medical professional.

Who should our lawmakers and the FDA be listening to? Should we listen to a non-medically licensed politician whose motives align themselves with the big pharmaceutical companies he protects or should we listen to the health professionals that are all but screaming for us to actually pay attention to our country's real health issues?

When a government is in the pockets of private companies, we run dangerously close to abandoning our democratic process and a government that will sacrifice the health of its citizens is a government by the money, for the money. Let's tell our politicians that the people are the government and politicians can only ignore their constituents for so long before their game runs out.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow on Twitter and Facebook

The Obama Trillion-Dollar Tax Hike and America's Charitable Sector

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Americans for Tax Reform today took a look at the provisions in Obama's budget outline that affect charitable giving:

One of the most controversial aspects of the Obama trillion-dollar tax hike is the effect that it will have on America's charities. America is built on a concept of "civil society." We don't expect government institutions to be the primary provider of care for those in need. We expect charities to do that. The Obama tax hike takes aim directly at charities, just at a time when America needs them the most.

Where charities currently stand. In 2006 (the latest year for which the IRS has data), families donated $187 billion to charities. Corporations donated another $16 billion. Foundations, trusts, and estates contributed $131 billion more. Charitable contributions are tax-deductible, and face very few restrictions in current tax law. According to the Office of Management and Budget, all these charitable contributions cut federal taxes by $58 billion every year.

The Obama Trillion-Dollar Tax Hike's Double Assault on Charities

-- The Obama trillion-dollar tax hike brings back the itemized deduction phaseout (Pease) in 2011 for married couples making $250,000 and single people making $200,000. Nearly all itemized deductions will have to be reduced by 3% of the extent that income exceeds this level. So, a married couple making $1,000,000 will see their itemized deductions (including charitable contributions) reduced by ($1,000,000-$250,000)*.03, or $22,500. The Pease limit can only reduce itemized deductions by 80%.

-- The Obama trillion-dollar tax hike also creates a new limit above and beyond Pease. No matter what tax rate you fall into, your itemized deductions (including charitable contributions) cannot benefit you any more than if you found yourself in the 28 percent bracket. Returning to our $1,000,000 taxpayer, he finds himself in Obama's new, higher 39.6 percent bracket (up from today's 35 percent, incidentally). If he gives an additional $1000 to charity, it won't reduce his income tax burden by $396, as one might expect. Rather, his income taxes would only go down by $280.

How will this assault on charitable giving change things in America?

Suppose families decide, on the aggregate, that they will give one percent less to charity as a result of this limitation. For every 1 percent decline in household charitable giving, that's nearly $2 billion less given to charity. The impact could be much greater if families decide to keep more of their money, rather than give it away. That's $2 billion that's not available for churches, shelters, and other worthy causes.

And all this because Obama wanted to "spread the wealth." The true victims of this tax increase will be America's poor. Potentially, they could be left to choose between no help at all, and a bureaucratic government handout. This should be seen as part of the larger Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan to get rid of civil society and have all altruism funded by the government.

Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Using taxes to get kids off their butts...

So this new group in New Mexico, "No Kid Left Inside", wants to use taxes to try and get kids off their butts and into sports. They are proposing, pushing, to add a one-percent sales tax onto video games and televisions. The money would be used to fund more sports.

Uh huh.

I understand the sentiment, it is a good idea for kids to participate in sports IF they want to do so. However, having more programs to entice video playing kids to pack up their game and head outdoors isn't going to work.

They like what they're doing. Plus, it's easier on the parents. All a Mom or Dad has to do to get peace and quiet is pick up a baby-sitter at the local video outlet for twenty buck or more, depending on the game, and park their kids in a chair.

They don't have to take their time to tote them to a game, sit there for hours watching the rug rats torture a ball, then pay for snacks when it's their turn and, heaven forbid, interact with other parents and children.

Nope, they can get their nails done, clean the house, finish that brief, relax in front of the boob tube... the list is endless as to what the parent would have to give up. It's easier for them to complain about the growing obesity problem we are facing in this country. It's easier all around.

I contend that if parents wanted their children involved in sports, they would have started them on that track long before the kids knew how to push the video game buttons. Well-rounded kids can do both.

There are some children who will never play sports. They may want to paint, sculpt, play music, work on cars, re-program Dad's computer or have some other interesting ideas as to how they want to spend their time.

I'm never for raising taxes. There's plenty of money for sports, we just have to stop building bridges to nowhere, supporting dead beats and funding stupid research projects.

By the way, what you want to bet that if they DO manage to push through the tax that the end result will be more managers and staff? They'll have to put together committees or oversight Boards to watch and spend the money. How long before there's a shortfall in one area and the funds are re-directed to build roads to get to the local parks? Let me count the ways our government can spend tax money...

N.M. tax would target TVs, video games
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Dave Gilligan remembers being pushed outside to play baseball and other sports, but feeling it just wasn't for him. So the 24-year-old business owner is skeptical about a proposal to nudge kids off the couch and out the door by taxing televisions and video games sold in New Mexico. The idea could backfire, he says.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_us/no_child_left_inside

Bloggers beware... Think the Internet is beyond the reach of the Government?

This is by far one of the most thought provoking, and scary, articles I have read in recent weeks. The author, Selwyn Duke, has been reading my mind. Actually, I'm sure there are quite a few of us in the world who've had thoughts. Duke pulled the facts together in an easy to read, well written article that hopefully won't end up being a prophecy of our future.

We have to be vigilant and guard our freedoms. When so-called free-wheeling groups like Google, YouTube and others cave the Internet becomes more vulnerable to the political correctness police.

The Race for the American Mind
Last year's scamnesty bill had widespread support among the powers-that-be, with the president, the Democrat majority and mainstream media all singing its praises. Yet it went down to defeat, slain by a new-media coalition of talk radio and blogosphere warriors. Working tirelessly to expose the truth and rally the grassroots, they became a David who slew a Goliath.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/the_race_for_the_american_mind.html