Who Wins and Who Loses in Debt Battle

Nate Silver published an informative article recently entitled "Surveying the Electoral Damage of the Debt Debate" that should be required reading for anyone who is interested in about the political landscape following the debt "crisis."

While I understand that a lot of people are more worried about whether their social security and Medicare will be cut than about who wins and who loses in the end, there are a large amount of politicos out there who eat, sleep, and breathe polling data and statistical analysis.

The most notable analysis was in regards to the 2012 election cycle.

FiveThirtyEight

Since Congress’s approval rating is now extremely low, 2012 could be another high-volatility cycle. There are 93 first-term members of the current House (78 of whom are Republicans). Next year could match or exceed that threshold, especially given redistricting, which could be responsible for another 20 or so incumbents either losing or retiring above and beyond the impact of the overall political climate.

What’s less clear is how the losses might be distributed between the parties. An anti-Republican wave is plausible, but so is an anti-incumbent one. The election of 2012 could resemble that of another redistricting year, 1992, in which there were a remarkable 110 first-term members of Congress elected, but in which the losses were split fairly evenly between the parties. (Democrats lost a net of 9 seats in the House despite winning the presidency.)

One thing that is for sure? Congressional Republicans are in trouble:

In other words, I think we’re seeing a lot of caution lights for the Republicans — but not yet any red flags. The nearest thing to an exception is probably this: the recent CNN poll that finds that 58 percent of voters think the policies proposed by Republicans in Congress would take the country in the wrong direction. Not only is that figure up significantly from where it was when CNN last polled it in January (when it stood at 50 percent). It’s also by some margin the worst rating that CNN has found for either party since they began polling on the question in 1994.

Read the whole article here.

Weekday Rant: Handling of Debt Ceiling Has Become Incomprehensible

 

Google Images

Today really got to me. It may have been the lack of sleep, the lack of my morning coffee, or the hour commute that I make to work, but for some reason, I found myself utterly disgusted with the entire political system for the first time in recent memory. I won't bore you with a long drawn-out analysis but I just felt like I needed to rant and let a couple of things out quickly.

The more that this debt ceiling debate continues, the more frustrated that I become. With the markets selling off today (and most likely until we get some type of deal), how can politicians not possibly realize that what they are doing, the brinkmanship that they are directly committing too, is negatively affecting the constituents that they were sent to Washington to represent?

Furthermore, why does America so badly desire for "fresh faces" in Washington? There's a reason why we have career politicians in Congress. Sure, the longer you're in Congress, the more of a chance you have to be exposed to things that may be ethically questionable and the greater sense of entitlement you may feel. But there are so many positives to having experienced politicians in Washington: They get it, period. They understand that compromise is necessary, that both sides will have to suffer some if you're really serious about fixing the deficit. They try to beat back partisanship and don't play politics with issues that could have horrible consequences. 

But freshman in Congress just don't get it. Sure, they're a fresh face. Sure, they were swept into office because they were able to convince the American public that the nation was broke (even though, in the short term it really is not). Can a new voice in Washington help push things in the right direction? Sure it can. But freshman in Congress are not using their voices to start a dialogue, to compromise on the issues that were most important to them when they were campaigning. No, instead, they are using their voices to whine, complain, and spew talking points, doing all that they can to avoid compromise at all costs. This is not the way that Washington works. 

Google Images: Mo Brooks, a freshman congressman from Alabama, said that he did not understand why the United States credit might be downgraded. In fact, Brooks argued that our credit should actually be upgraded since Tea Party Republicans are refusing to raise the debt ceiling (I wish I were kidding).

Experienced congressman understand that there is a time and a place for every issue. If you want to talk about eliminating waste in government, reforming entitlements, or letting the Bush tax cuts expire, great -- I agree, and I think that's a debate that absolutely needs to be had. But why now? Why, when the economy is just starting to recover, when unemployment is still around 9%, when the debt ceiling needs to be raised to avoid a default and a credit downgrade, are members of Congress holding the economy hostage to their demands? Plain and simple, freshman in Congress are putting their own demands before their constituents and before the fate of the nation. 

I follow politics night and day. When I wake up, I immediately read Politico Playbook. When I get to work, I leave Politico and The Hill open so I can constantly check back for updates. I created a twitter for the purpose of getting up-to-the-minute breaking news. In my four years of real understanding and interest for politics, I have never once grown tired of it. I love the analysis, love the discussions, love the horse race. But for the first time, I'm starting to grow tired. I simply do not understand what is happening with our government anymore.

How can such a basic, procedural vote essentially stop the entire United States government from talking about anything else for months? How can one party hold the entire economy hostage, risking the fate of our credit and our nation for years, over one vote? It is simply incomprehensible to me. The partisan bickering, the despicable brinkmanship, has finally gotten out of hand. President Obama said that "America voted for divided government, but they did not vote for dysfunctional government." 

We are a centrist nation. Freshman Republicans say they have a mandate from the American people, that they speak for the American people, when they say that the debt ceiling should not be raised. They're not telling the truth. Every major poll shows that Americans are desperate for compromise. 

Americans are generally a centrist group of people. In most cases, voting Americans look for some form of divided government, and rightfully so. With divided government, both parties are forced to compromise, sacrificing a few points to the other party while gaining a few as well. But this is not what happened. Instead, freshman, tea-party supported members of Congress have put the fate of this country at risk in their attempts to discredit every single thing that President Obama has done in office. They came to Washington saying that they would end the partisan rancor once and for all and what did they end up doing but widening the ideological divide and standing directly in the way of any and all compromise. 

I want to leave you with a quote. Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said something that, to me, has never rang more true: 

"The Republican Party is trying to repeal the 20th century."

Weekday Rant: Handling of Debt Ceiling Has Become Incomprehensible

Google Images

Today really got to me. It may have been the lack of sleep, the lack of my morning coffee, or the hour commute that I make to work, but for some reason, I found myself utterly disgusted with the entire political system for the first time in recent memory. I won't bore you with a long drawn-out analysis but I just felt like I needed to rant and let a couple of things out quickly.

The more that this debt ceiling debate continues, the more frustrated that I become. With the markets selling off today (and most likely until we get some type of deal), how can politicians not possibly realize that what they are doing, the brinkmanship that they are directly committing too, is negatively affecting the constituents that they were sent to Washington to represent?

Furthermore, why does America so badly desire for "fresh faces" in Washington? There's a reason why we have career politicians in Congress. Sure, the longer you're in Congress, the more of a chance you have to be exposed to things that may be ethically questionable and the greater sense of entitlement you may feel. But there are so many positives to having experienced politicians in Washington: They get it, period. They understand that compromise is necessary, that both sides will have to suffer some if you're really serious about fixing the deficit. They try to beat back partisanship and don't play politics with issues that could have horrible consequences. 

But freshman in Congress just don't get it. Sure, they're a fresh face. Sure, they were swept into office because they were able to convince the American public that the nation was broke (even though, in the short term it really is not). Can a new voice in Washington help push things in the right direction? Sure it can. But freshman in Congress are not using their voices to start a dialogue, to compromise on the issues that were most important to them when they were campaigning. No, instead, they are using their voices to whine, complain, and spew talking points, doing all that they can to avoid compromise at all costs. This is not the way that Washington works. 

Google Images: Mo Brooks, a freshman congressman from Alabama, said that he did not understand why the United States credit might be downgraded. In fact, Brooks argued that our credit should actually be upgraded since Tea Party Republicans are refusing to raise the debt ceiling (I wish I were kidding).

Experienced congressman understand that there is a time and a place for every issue. If you want to talk about eliminating waste in government, reforming entitlements, or letting the Bush tax cuts expire, great -- I agree, and I think that's a debate that absolutely needs to be had. But why now? Why, when the economy is just starting to recover, when unemployment is still around 9%, when the debt ceiling needs to be raised to avoid a default and a credit downgrade, are members of Congress holding the economy hostage to their demands? Plain and simple, freshman in Congress are putting their own demands before their constituents and before the fate of the nation. 

I follow politics night and day. When I wake up, I immediately read Politico Playbook. When I get to work, I leave Politico and The Hill open so I can constantly check back for updates. I created a twitter for the purpose of getting up-to-the-minute breaking news. In my four years of real understanding and interest for politics, I have never once grown tired of it. I love the analysis, love the discussions, love the horse race. But for the first time, I'm starting to grow tired. I simply do not understand what is happening with our government anymore.

How can such a basic, procedural vote essentially stop the entire United States government from talking about anything else for months? How can one party hold the entire economy hostage, risking the fate of our credit and our nation for years, over one vote? It is simply incomprehensible to me. The partisan bickering, the despicable brinkmanship, has finally gotten out of hand. President Obama said that "America voted for divided government, but they did not vote for dysfunctional government." 

We are a centrist nation. Freshman Republicans say they have a mandate from the American people, that they speak for the American people, when they say that the debt ceiling should not be raised. They're not telling the truth. Every major poll shows that Americans are desperate for compromise. 

Americans are generally a centrist group of people. In most cases, voting Americans look for some form of divided government, and rightfully so. With divided government, both parties are forced to compromise, sacrificing a few points to the other party while gaining a few as well. But this is not what happened. Instead, freshman, tea-party supported members of Congress have put the fate of this country at risk in their attempts to discredit every single thing that President Obama has done in office. They came to Washington saying that they would end the partisan rancor once and for all and what did they end up doing but widening the ideological divide and standing directly in the way of any and all compromise. 

I want to leave you with a quote. Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said something that, to me, has never rang more true: 

"The Republican Party is trying to repeal the 20th century."

Looking For A Viable Third Party? Look No Further

Let's face facts: The two-party system is a failure. Both sides become deeply entrenched in their rhetoric and no compromise is ever made because none is ever necessary. Democrats can run back to their base saying that they did not cut entitlements that are (rightly) important to their voters and Republicans can energize their base by sticking to their "no new taxes" pledge. Other than a few special circumstances (like the debt ceiling), neither side needs to compromise because they don't have to. There are currently no viable third parties in the United States that could challenge the Republicans or the Democrats, so the two parties can focus on the issues they want and not worry about anything else.

Now I'm not arguing that a multiparty system is always better. Having a proportional representation system of voting, where a political party is awarded the same percentage of seats as they received votes (3% of the vote means that the party would receive 3% of the seats in the legislature), at least forces compromise. It is not enough for a political system to "encourage" compromise. As we see with major issues like the debt ceiling now, compromise is a vital part of the functioning on any country, and if it is not forced, it often does not happen and can have disastrous repercussions. 

As I just said, the two party system is broken. But for those who are discontent with both parties, who are completely turned off to the idea of partisan, ideological governance and want leadership that is willing to openly discuss and compromise, what do you do? Not since Ross Perot received almost 19% of the vote in the 1992 election has a third-party candidate had an actual shot at breaking the top two, let along garnering more than 1% of the vote. But there may be a new solution: Americans Elect. 

Americans Elect

Americans Elect
A new third party political startup is quickly emerging -- and their doing so utilizing the internet and the millions of discontent members of both parties. Sure, it sounds a little bit cheesy, but over 1.6 million people have signed their petition, and the group has accrued an impressive number of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Not only do they have a massive following, but they also have a well thought-out strategy for 2012.

In just a few days, Americans elect will formally submit 1.6 million signatures in order to be put on the presidential ballot in California. This is just one part of their unfolding national effort to get on the ballot of all 50 states in 2012. 

According to Thomas Friedman,

The goal of Americans Elect is to take a presidential nominating process now monopolized by the Republican and Democratic parties, which are beholden to their special interests, and blow it wide open — guaranteeing that a credible third choice, nominated independently, will not only be on the ballot in every state but be able to take part in every presidential debate and challenge both parties from the middle with the best ideas on how deal with the debt, education and jobs.

The goal of the movement, according to Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, is to

open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties.

But how can they possibly pull something like this off? First off, the organization is surprisingly well-funded, with state of the art offices financed by a number of hedge-fund managers just a stone's throw from the White House. But more than that, the organization will hope to tap into two important markets, the first being the millions of frustrated Americans disgruntled by the Washington political machine, and the second is the millions of people who use the internet on a regular basis. The way that they will achieve success is brilliantly simple. Let the people decide:

Americans Elect is the first-ever open nominating process. We’re using the Internet to give every single voter — Democrat, Republican or independent — the power to nominate a presidential ticket in 2012. The people will choose the issues. The people will choose the candidates. And in a secure, online convention next June, the people will make history by putting their choice on the ballot in every state.

Here's how it will work:

1. First, all those who are at all interested in becoming a delegate for Americans Elect goes to the website (http://www.americanselect.org/) and registers. As part of this short process, you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire pertaining to your views on a number of key issues and the priority they hold in your mind. Topics include the economy, foreign policy, education, etc. By providing Americans Elect with this information, you allow them to put you in contact with other people of similar views who you can discuss and organize with.
2. Following the registration process, you will be invited to "draft" a new candidate or support one who has already been drafted. You will also be allowed to contribute to the list of questions that all those who are running on the Americans Elect platform must answer before receiving the nomination.
3. Every candidate will have to post his or her answers either in writing or through video so that delegates have the opportunity to educate themselves on the different candidate's beliefs
4. Next, in April 2012, the candidate pool will be reduced to six following three separate rounds of elimination voting. The six, assuming they all want to run, will then have to name their running mates. The catch? A Democrat must run with a Republican or an independent and vice versa.
5. Finally, in June of 2012, the online nominating convention will narrow down the six to just one - and if all goes to plan, that person and his/her running mate will be put automatically onto the ballot in all 50 states. 

Google Images

Will the movement ultimately be successful? If their goal is to win the White House in 2012, then most would say that they have very little chance. But, if their goal is prove that a third party group has the power to organize and assert power in Washington and to push issues that would most likely otherwise not be discussed, then it will most likely be a glowing success.

Third parties have been great at doing one thing: Shedding light on an issue that the two party system neglects, if not completely ignores. Many third party groups, like the Green Party and its face Ralph Nader (who receives less than 1% of the vote in election years), has brought light to a number of different issues through the years, despite never coming close to being elected. Can you imagine how much of a stir a third party group could cause if it was not only well-financed and well-conceived, but also strongly supported by more than 1 million Americans? While its too early to deem the project a total success, I tip my hat to Americans Elect for creating such an incredible buzz around such a strong idea and I encourage all those who are not content with the current system to at least take a look. 

Check out the website: http://www.americanselect.org/

Are Democrats on the Side of Ronald Reagan in Debt Negotiations?

PoliticsUSA

Let's play a little game. Who said the following quotes?

1. “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility...This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

2. "This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world...The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."

Give up? It was, amazingly, Ronald Reagan, way back in the 80s. Which begs the question, has the Democratic Party become the new party of Ronald Reagan (at least in terms of deficits)?
 

A Comparison

Let's take a quick look at a comparison between Tea Party Republicans and their supposed idol Ronald Reagan:

1. While Reagan presided over 18 increases in the federal debt ceiling during his eight years in office, Tea Party Republicans say that a vote to raise the debt ceiling is a threat to their most personal of values.
2. According to Dana Milbank who writes for the Washington Post, Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times while in office. Tea Party Republicans, on the other hand, refuse to support any increase in taxes and are even against the closing of tax loopholes for big oil companies and millionaires who can afford corporate jets. Many in the Tea Party seem to believe that they would rather see us default than to raise taxes one penny.
3. In "Cut, cap, and Balance", Tea Party Republicans promised and voted to cut government spending permanently to a level that was below 18% of our gross domestic product; under President Reagan, spending got up to as high as 23.5% and never fell below 21.3% of GDP
4. Influential Tea Party freshman have also been looking for drastic cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare; Reagan, on the other hand, signed a major expansion of the program. 

Plus, the theories of trickle down economics largely rely on deficit spending to be able to both cut taxes and increase spending.

And it's not as if President Reagan's views on raising the debt ceiling were a one time thing. Throughout his entire career, Reagan made sure to remind those in positions of power, who had the opportunity to play politics with the debt ceiling, that any political chicken with such an explosive issue could have absolutely terrifying effects on this nation's credit. And if the United States loses its full faith and credit, what do we have left?

In 1983, Ronald Reagan wrote the following message to Republican Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker:

PolitcsUSA

Analysis and Conclusion

Let all of the above information sink in for just a minute. It really is amazing how far right the Tea Party has taken the mainstream GOP. Candidates like Mitt Romney, who in a perfect world would run as a very moderate Republican, are being forced to apologize for their support of perfectly legitimate things, like taxing polluters and supporting a health care system in which access to quality medical care is a right and not a privilege. Truth to be told, if Ronald Reagan ran for office today, I don't think he'd stand a chance among the religious zealots and tea party supporters. Back when he was in office, Reagan was considered a far-right conservative ideologue. Nowadays, Reagan, a man so revered by the right and despised by the left, would be considered a very moderate Republican, if not even a very conservative Blue Dog Democrat. 

Were he alive today, Reagan would almost certainly agree with President Obama on the need to raise the debt ceiling and the need to include revenue raises as part of a possible deal. The American people sure understand, with a new Gallup poll out recently showing that 66% of Americans believe that any deficit deal should include a equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

If you really think about it, the fact that so many Americans believe tax increases should be a part of a deal and the concept that Reagan would today be an extremely moderate Republican, it makes you realize how out of touch the Tea Party and the House of Representatives must be if they really believe that they are speaking for the American people.

Opinion: Tax Junk Food, Subsidize Vegetables

New York Times Image

After sitting on a bus for five hours tonight, reading story after story about the debt ceiling, learning absolutely no new information, both sides completely dug in, I decided that I really needed to free myself from the horrible constraints of rehashing the same old points about the debt ceiling. So, for tonight's post, I want to talk about an issue that is extremely important to me and to the fate of this country: the problem of nutrition in the United States.

As a disclaimer, this post was inspired by a recent article in the New York Times, which I will cite throughout.

Introduction
What would happen if we were able to change our eating habits? Americans have been stuck in a rut of horrible food at dirt cheap prices for at least a decade, and the situation is getting worse. And, to be honest, I cannot blame the working class families who feed their children fast food day in and day out. When you are working paycheck to paycheck and trying to support a family while working three jobs, the calorie-dense, cheap fast food meal options can be a blessing. But there is of course another side to the coin: Americans are becoming the fattest people on earth, and fast food is absolutely the reason. 

And the nutrition problem in this country is not only a personal issue, it's also an economic one. Think about it: Economists say that the number one way to reduce the deficit and right the economy long-term is to find some way to slow the quickly rising cost of health care in this country. The way to do it? One word: Prevention. If you can find a way to offset the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables for working class families who generally eat fast food at higher rates and have more health problems down the line, you could easily slow the massive amounts of money that we spend every year on health care costs. You're looking at tens, even hundreds, of billions in savings. 

Google Images: In many cases, in the current nutritional climate we are in, a burger and fries can be much cheaper and easier than a home-cooked, healthier meal option

The Current Situation
While junk foods (like chips, sodas, "fruit" drinks, etc.) have been shown to lead to diseases like diabetes and heart disease, the food industry, more specifically the highly-processed food industry, has proven incapable of marketing healthier food options. Why do they refuse to market healthier foods? Simple, because while they tout their care for health and growth, the only thing these major companies are after is profit, and while unhealthy foods continue to drive profit margins higher, they will continue to push these products onto our society. 

In my opinion, it should be the federal government's job to stop outrages like this. The government needs to fulfill its main role as a protector of the public good. Currently, the federal government actually subsidizes these unhealthy products by, among other things, lowering the price of corn to an unbelievable extreme. This allows junk food designers to add things like high fructose corn syrup for pennies, charge low prices, and still make inordinately high profits. Rather than subsidize the junk food, we should be doing the opposite: taxing the foods that are most unhealthy for us. The income that we gain from doing so could be used to create a program that encourages Americans to eat healthy and warns them of the potential problems that eating poorly can cause long-term. 

And the need for a solution is absolutely dire. Attempting to educate our youths on the value of fresh vegetables over the sugary sweet taste of cocoa pebbles is difficult enough. Moreover, nutritional education is no match for the $4 billion that the fast food industry pushed into marketing in 2009. Here are a few facts:

1. The percentage of obesity among American adults has doubles over the last 30 years
2. The percentage of obese children has tripled in that same period
3. We not consume more than 10% more animal products than we did a generation ago, and while low fat meats like chicken are not necessarily a bad thing (despite the oftentimes inhuman conditions), I think that Americans would perhaps be better off without the quadruple baconator offered at Wendy's. 

The situation will only get worse, unless we act. Soon. 

Google Images: The subsidization of corn has long been considered detrimental to the well-being of that nation

Taxes
The way to solve the nutrition problem is an easy one: Tax the junk food and subsidize the fresh food. Easier said than done. 

According to Mark Bittman, who wrote an op-ed for the NYTimes, 

The average American consumes 44.7 gallons of soft drinks annually. (Although that includes diet sodas, it does not include noncarbonated sweetened beverages, which add up to at least 17 gallons a person per year.) Sweetened drinks could be taxed at 2 cents per ounce, so a six-pack of Pepsi would cost $1.44 more than it does now. An equivalent tax on fries might be 50 cents per serving; a quarter extra for a doughnut. (We have experts who can figure out how “bad” a food should be to qualify, and what the rate should be; right now they’re busy calculating ethanol subsidies. Diet sodas would not be taxed.)

Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.

This would, in essence, drive up the cost of junk food (although not exponentially if we are only discussing a cent, maybe two tops, per ounce) and keep the price of fresh fruits and vegetables extremely low, encouraging all types of people to buy more healthy foods. The tax would not only raise money for state and federal governments in a time where the economic recovery is slow at best, but it would also act as a preventative measure and save the country billions on health care costs long term. Think if you could go to the grocery store, the drug store, the supermarket, and find fresh fruit for 50 cents a pound instead of the 2 to 4 dollars we pay now. Think about the health opportunities if we could put vending machines filled with fresh fruits and vegetables in schools and charge less than a dollar, an idea that has already been implemented in both Japan and Ohio. 

For many Americans, they have a much more difficult time purchasing fresh fruit than fruit loops. And with diabetes and other diseases attributed to bad eating habits on the rise, this issue is absolutely urgent for the economy sanctity and national well-being of this nation. 

The problem with most state taxes on junk food right now is that they're a sales tax, meaning that the tax is charged at the register. As anyone who buys their own groceries knows, most people only consider the price they see in the aisles, not really caring about the tax they have to pay on the good. Therefore, the added sales tax to junk food is a mostly failed policy, as it has not demonstrated an impact in the goods that people commonly buy. This means that excise taxes are needed if we really want to impact the way consumers purchase. An excise tax would be incorporated into the shelf life of a product, which would mean that it would directly impact the way decisions that consumers would have to make. 

According to Bittman, 

Much of the research on beverage taxes comes from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Its projections indicate that taxes become significant at the equivalent of about a penny an ounce, a level at which three very good things should begin to happen: the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages should decrease, as should the incidence of disease and therefore public health costs; and money could be raised for other uses.

Google Images: Obesity is on the rise, having more than tripled among children in the last thirty years. We can stop the flow of childhood and adult obesity by making junk foods more expensive and subsidizing the cost of healthy and delicious fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Potential Pitfalls
Bittman points out two major problems, one being that it would upset the extremely powerful food lobby and the other being that some would ague that the government is infringing on their right to eat what they want:

This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit.

Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them.

Conclusion 
Acceptance of new taxes in a nation that is electing such anti-tax zealots will not go down easy. According to Bittman, 

First off, we’ll have to listen to nanny-state arguments, which can be countered by the acceptance of the anti-tobacco movement as well as a dozen other successful public health measures. Then there are the predictions of  job loss at soda distributorships, but the same predictions were made about the tobacco industry, and those were wrong. (For that matter, the same predictions were made around the nickel deposit on bottles, which most shoppers don’t even notice.) Ultimately, however, both consumers and government will be more than reimbursed in the form of cheaper healthy staples, lowered health care costs and better health. And that’s a big deal.

As you can see, all of these arguments against the taxation of junk foods can be easily rebuked through reason.

In order to hammer home the point, I want to leave you with some numbers:

1. According to a professor at Columbia University, a one-cent per ounce tax on sugar-laced beverages in the state of New York could save up to $3 billion in health care costs over ten years and could bring in $1 billion annually to the state
2. A two-cent tax per ounce in the state of Illinois could reduce obesity by 18%, save $350 million and bring in over $800 million in tax revenue every year
3. If implemented nationally, the United States could see revenues of $13 billion a year while cutting consumption up to 24%
4. A 20% increase in the price of sugary drinks could result in a 20% decrease in consumption, which could prevent up to 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 from being diagnosed with diabetes, which could save $30 billion

The federal government is embattled in a tedious fight over what areas to cut, whether it be education, medicare, social security. Significant issues like the nutritional well-being of our nation are being blatantly overlooked. But if the government had any idea the economic value of the issue, both the savings and the revenues that could be made from a simple change in the system, they may be less likely to neglect and more likely to listen. 

Sunday Opinion: Romney Could Take Down Obama in 2012

Google Images: Mitt Romney could make a splash among voters in 2012

For my Sunday opinion piece, I'd like to quickly expand on a point that I made yesterday, which was that Washington's toxic climate could make presidential re-election very difficult in 2012. 

With debt ceiling talks imploding, and both parties taking significant hits in the polls as Americans go more and more frustrated with the way in which Washington works and the posturing that both sides go through before anything is accomplished, this creates the perfect opportunity for a well-funded republican challenger to step into the spotlight. With Rick Perry not yet declaring (and if he does decide to throw his hat in the ring, declaring extremely late), all indications point to Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president in 2012. And a mix of different polls shows that Romney actually has fairly good odds at, at a minimum, taking President Obama down to the wire on election night.

Let's take a look at the polls and see what we can conclude. 

The Polls
Poll #1: Obama vs. GOP General Election Results

fivethiryeight.blogs.nytimes.com

Nate Silver recently released a poll with some rather shocking results.  While Giuliani appears to beat Obama by 1.3 points, the possibility of him getting the nomination is tremendously small. The scarier number for Democrats is against Mitt Romney, where the president only leads by around 2 percentage points. 

Many people say that polling data this far away from 2012 seems hardly useful. And for the most part, I would agree with them, especially in regards to head-to-head polling like the one above. But times are changing, and with Washington spending multiple months, up to a year, on one single issue (like health care or like the debt ceiling currently), those poll numbers are less likely to change significantly. Let me put it another way: It used to be that an incumbent president this far away from the election had plenty of time to discuss new issues and reassure discontent voters by proposing and encouraging the passage of legislation that was important to them. But 2012 could be radically different. After spending more than eight months on health care and six months (and counting) on debt ceiling negotiations, the United States Congress and subsequently, the president of the United States, has very little room to maneuver when it comes to other important issues that could assist in bolstering their election prospects. This could play to the strength of the GOP nominee, who will not be handicapped by what's driving Washington and the the large chunks of time that the president will be using to deal with his presidential duties rather than hitting the campaign trail, fundraising with donors and pushing his message. 

Poll #2: Presidential Approval Ratings

The second piece of polling data that is important to look at when discussing the election in 2012 is the president's approval ratings. While day-to-day polling is important to see, it is also important to look at the general trajectory and try to imply where it is headed. Of course, President Obama began his tenure with huge support and gigantic hopes for a new Washington. Unfortunately, a number of those hopes and promises have gone unfulfilled and Washington remains gridlocked. While President Obama is not fully to blame for the gridlock (especially on the debt ceiling, where congressional republicans continue to hold the economy hostage), voters really only care about one thing: "I voted for Obama because I wanted change, and change did not happen." And the president's approval rating has reflected that discontent, hovering in the mid 40's for months. While in other election cycles, I would argue that the president has plenty of time to raise his numbers, campaigning and promoting his message enough to get a majority of voters, I'm not so sure about it this time. As I previously said, if Obama is stuck in Washington arguing with congressional leaders on the Hill about how to raise the debt ceiling again in eight months, the republican nominee has a huge opportunity to outwork and out-campaign the president.

Poll #3: Debt Ceiling Polling

When asked to whom they would assign responsibility should the limit not be raised, 48 percent of respondents chose the congressional Republicans; 34 percent said they would blame the Obama administration.

These results echo a Pew Research Center poll conducted from June 16-19 which asked the same question as the Quinnipiac poll. According to that survey, 42 percent of respondents said they would blame Republicans in Congress if the debt ceiling were not raised; 33 percent chose the Obama Administration.

Source: Quinnipac Polling

The above poll (and other polls like it) seem to spell good news for President Obama. A large plurality of Americans (48%) would blame congressional republicans if the United States defaulted. Short term, Obama may win the battle. But dig deeper, think long term, and the above polling might not be so cheery for Democratic strategists. If the country does surpass the August 2nd deadline and the US begins the process of defaulting on our debt, this country will see an anti-incumbent sentiment so strong that 2012 could be the largest wave election (i.e. incumbents losing in droves) that we have ever seen. And even though it is the republicans who have largely been holding the economy hostage with these debt ceiling talks, Obama cannot win. Even if he comes out with a short-term victory, voters will view the president as "bad" and congressional republicans as "horrible." Either way, they are likely to start looking for someone new.

Conclusion

Of course, there is clearly the chance that Republicans nominate someone who is too conservative to maximize their opportunity with swing voters. The republican base is becoming more and more ideologically driven and presidential candidates will have to move sharply right in order to attain the party's nomination and quiet and reassure the tea party.  On the other hand, while incumbent presidents are very difficult to defeat, someone like Romney would probably compel a very close election unless the economic recovery picks up its pace next year.