Everyday Politics Blog

The Beverage Tax

by Laura McKenna

One of the many proposed policies aimed at reducing obesity is a beverage tax. New York State has proposed a one cent tax on sugary drinks.

In Diane Sawyer's documentary of Appalachia, she has a long discussion of how the huge consumption of Mountain Dew in that area results in horrible tooth decay by age 30. 

There's a 7/11 about 50 yards from my son's middle school. After school, hundreds of kids load up on Slurpies everyday on their way home. A good number of them drink Slurpies for breakfast before school as well. 

Jane Brody from the New York Times reports, "In the last half-century, consumption of sugars by the average American has increased by more than 24 pounds a year, expanding waistlines and crowding out more nutritious foods." She discusses the latest research on the problems with soda.

Coca Cola and their lobbying group, the American Beverage Association, are actively fighting the beverage tax. They've been running commercials about how this is going to cost working families more money and how they're putting in better options into the soda machines at schools.

Supporters say that a beverage tax is no different than the tax on cigarettes, which has helped reduce smoking. It can raise billions of dollars that can be used for good programs. If the tax money that is raised goes directly to the communities that consume these beverages, then it's not a poor tax, like the lottery.

They argue that a one cent tax alone isn't going to change consumption habits and probably won't make anyone thinner, but it will raise some good money and help raise awareness that soda shouldn't be an everyday habit.

Other ideas include pressuring fast food restaurants to not make soda the default drink in combo specials, removing soda machines from schools, and giving children the same anti-soda messages in health class at school, similar to anti-smoking messages that they already receive.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do believe that soda is a harmless beverage that is American as baseball and hotdogs and that it is wrong to impose a tax on it? Would this tax impose an unfair burden on families? Should government be discouraging the consumption of soda given the well documented health risks? Are sugary drinks the new cigarette?

The Politics of Public Health

by Laura McKenna

Thanks to Michelle Obama and Jamie Oliver, everybody is talking about obese children and what government can be doing differently. Fatty school lunches, the need for exercise programs, the possibility of a soda tax, and the creation of food awareness classes are all on the table The discussion has gone beyond fat kids to talking about fat adults.

Even as the discussion of the obesity epidemic has picked up, KFC has introduced a new sandwich, the Double Down -- two Original Recipe fillets, Swiss and pepper jack cheese, Colonel sauce, and bacon. Still, it may not be as horrible for you as other fast food sandwiches. Nate Silver runs the numbers.

Libertarians are generally suspicious of all public policy, because they reject the notion that government can make a positive impact on people's lives. The less government, the better. When government gets involved in people's lives, the outcome is usually expensive and results in unexpected outcomes. Welfare creates dependency, for example.

Libertarians especially hate governmental programs that push people to change their behavior regarding their health. For all but a radical fringe, they accept mandatory vaccinations for kids, but they aren't enthusiastic about other programs, which restrict a person's individual freedom to kill himself. I have a Big Mac, and I'm going to eat it. Efforts to reduce smoking and the availability to fast food is beyond the scope of government. They say that when government wades into these matters, it becomes a "nanny state" and adults should be able to make their own decisions about the Big Mac v. Tofu.

Liberals, on the other hand, say that obesity is expensive. Obesity-related diseases cost the public billions of dollars in healthcare costs. People don't really have the choice of a Big Mac v. Tofu, because tofu isn't available to most people and they don't know how to cook it. The Big Mac is cheaper than a good salad. The current system is rigged to make the Big Mac the most popular option and that isn't fair. Let's give people some real choices and, thus, increase their freedoms.

Liberals also say that children can't make the same choices as adults. They need guidance. If the parents and the community can't provide them with better options, then government must step in to help out. It's immoral to allow this generation of children to fill themselves up on Slurpies and candy bars. They believe that government can do better.

Which side do you agree with, the liberals or the libertarians? Do you think that government can create laws to make us healthier? Do you believe that laws governing our behavior are an infringement on our liberties?

Why Change Is Difficult

In 1964, voters sent a new, young generation of Democrats into Congress. Lyndon Johnson won a landslide election against Barry Goldwater. With Democratic control over both Congress and the White House, Johnson and Congress passes a series of major legislation, including The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Medicare, and Medicaid. Another group of laws were passed aimed at reducing poverty, improving education, and improving life in inner cities.

Regardless of your opinion of the outcome of these laws, there is no question that major change happened in 1964, and it happened quickly. These laws marked a sharp departure from the past. Government bureaucracy, as well as the federal budget, ballooned in size. Lives changed.

When Obama came to office last year with a Democratic majority in both houses of government, many thought it was 1964 all over again. He promised major legislation in health care, education, and infrastructure.

One year later, Congress still has made no progress on health care. Their Democratic majority is slowly eroding, and the public has grown cynical.

Why was Johnson so successful in 1964, and Obama has not yet passed health care reform?

There are many possible answers to this question. Instead of giving you one definitive answer, I'll propose three possible answers to that question and let you debate this matter in class. 

1) Some might point to intervening variables, including the failing economy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1964, the economy was booming, and Americans were wealthier than ever before. They were more willing to part with the tax money than Americans are today.

2) Stephen Skowronek, in addition to coming up with this nifty model for classifying presidents, wrote that it has grown increasingly difficult for presidents to make change in the United States, because of the thick layers of bureaucracy that have formed and the customs that have arisen. In the past, when a Reconstruction President came to office, it was easier for him to act as a "battering ram" and create new orders. Now, even strong, talented presidents can only make small, incremental changes.

Skowronek might say that bureaucracies and powerful interest groups have arisen in the past several decades, and they have a strong interest in perpetuating the status quo around health care policy. They drag down the system and prevent change.

3) Others might argue that Obama is having trouble today, because all change is difficult in the United States. 1964 was the outlier or an anomaly. What made 1964 significant wasn't the party composition of Congress, but the mood within the country, which was unusually optimistic and in agreement that change needed to happen. That broad agreement and optimism from within the public was a freakish blip in our nation's history.

That unusual public spirit is the only way that radical change can happen in our country, because our governmental system was designed by James Madison, the master worrier. Madison was terrified of rapid change. He worried that with the increasing the franchise, the unwashed masses might make unreasonable and unwise demands of their government, so he put in all sorts of fail safes into the constitution. There are checks upon checks and a million ways for bill to go off course. Just look at how difficult it has been for the conference committee to find compromise between the Senate and the House versions of the Health Care bill.

Which explanation seems most plausible to you? Do you have a better answer to the question?

Philanthropy and American Political Culture

by Laura McKenna

On January 12th, a massive 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti. Most of you watched the devastation on TV or read about the news on the Internet. We saw dead bodies on the street. We heard heart-wrenching tales of children trapped under the rubble crying for help. We saw people lying on stretchers with hacksaw amputations of their limbs.

And we responded. Fueled by social media, including Twitter, people called the Red Cross at 90999 and texted "haiti." To date, the Red Cross was able to bring in $8 million dollars through that effort. Overall, individual Americans donated $150 million in four days. That number marks a record for individual donations responding to a particular crisis, and social media no doubt played a large role in gathering funds.

With the ease of online donation forms and text donations, people are able to give easier than in the past with a checkbook,letter and stamp. Also, traditional donors are able to reach out to their less eager donor friends on Facebook and Twitter and urge them to give. 

While we have set new records for philanthropy, philanthropy is not that unusual for Americans. In fact, giving to others has long been considered a facet of American political culture.

Political culture is a set of widespread beliefs or values that are shared by a community. These values are passed down from parent to child and are taken on by immigrants as they assimilate.

American political culture is often defined as a commitment to individualism, capitalism, and freedom. Some have said that America's political culture is unique or exceptional, due to the common belief in Lockean liberalism among America's founders. Some scholars believe that American's exceptional political culture helps to explain why we have never had a strong Marxist or socialist party in our country. It may also explain why the United States has been so reluctant to establish a national health care system, while European nations have one for years.

Others have pointed to our roots as a Puritan nation and noted how that early religiosity helped shape our nation's history.

Another aspect of American political culture is our historic commitment to philanthropy. Alexis de Tocqueville noted the large number of charitable organizations in our country in the 1820s. According to the National Philanthropic Trust, 86% of American give to various charities and the average annual contribution was $1,620.

In a time where public morale may be at a low point, due to well publicized indiscretions of public figures, a flagging economy, and protracted wars abroad, Americans should take great pride in our willingness to open our pockets to help out a people on an island to our south.

Anti-Poverty Laws and Ideology

With the recent downturn in the economy more people are relying on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. Blue collar workers, especially those tied to the auto industry, have been forced to apply for services. (Check out the interactive map in the New York Times to see the numbers of recipients in your county.)

Some facts about Food Stamps:

• 1 in 8 Americans and 1 in 4 children are on Food Stamps
• 36 million Americans receive benefits
• In some counties, half of all children receive benefits.
• Only 2/3rd of those who are eligible have applied for the benefits. 15 to 16 million more could be getting services.
• Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs.
• Almost 90 percent of beneficiaries nationwide live below the poverty line (about $22,000 a year for a family of four).

Americans are divided about how government should approach anti-poverty programs, such as the Food Stamp program. In general, liberals believe that government should provide services to assist the poor  either by providing direct payments or by providing subsidies for education or job training. Conservatives believe that welfare programs create a class of people dependent on government money and eliminate the incentive to find work. They believe that volunteer organizations and local churches can provide food for the hungriest Americans, and government should not be involved. 

In the 1980s, President Clinton revamped the welfare program in this country. He famously claimed that we were going to end welfare as we know it. Work requirements and time limits were placed upon  welfare beneficiaries. As a result, the number of people on welfare has declined, however little research has been done to examine the full impact on families and children.

The Food Stamp program has been less controversial than other anti-poverty programs, because few people are willing to let people starve in the streets. The actual cash payment per family is relatively small. The debates around the Food Stamp program have largely been about how to eliminate fraud. How do you make sure that a mother is really using the money to buy rice and beans for her children and not trading in the vouchers for money that will spent on drugs or alcohol?

What laws or policies do you believe should be put into place to help the poor in America? Is government or the community responsible for making sure that children aren't starving? Should government be spending more time coming up with laws that get at the root of poverty? Should they be setting up job retraining programs in the neediest areas? Do you believe that fraud is a big problem with Food Stamps? Has your local community been hard hit by the economic downturn? What policies or programs would you like to see in your area?

I'll Bring Home the Bacon. Fry it Up in a Pan.

When I was in college, I signed up for an internship to work in the office of the Mayor of Binghamton, New York. My job was to answer mail from the constituency who complained about potholes in the streets or the drunks who poured out of local bars and puked on their front lawns. The mayor took these letters very seriously, so I put a lot of time into writing sensible and caring responses.

It was a fascinating experience. I learned that politicians must be concerned with keeping their constituency happy, and since then I've never hesitated to write an e-mail to my representative when I disagree with his voting record. These sorts of hands-on experiences are an excellent way to gain insight into politics that can't be gained from a textbook. I hope that you take advantage of such opportunities at your school.

As part of the internship, I had to discuss certain assigned readings with a professor and complete a research paper. My paper was on the governing style of women, since the mayor was a woman. At that time, there were very few women in government, so the paper consisted of mostly case studies and theoretical work. Twenty years later, I'm still pleased that I received an A for that paper.

Since then, more women have leadership positions in government. We have Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotormayor on the Supreme Court. There are 17 women in the Senate and and 75 women in the House of Representatives.

While women still do not comprise 50 percent of Congress, their numbers have increased substantially enabling researchers to gain further insight into their governing style. Recent research finds that women congressional leaders are more likely to sponsor pork-barrel legislation than male congressional leaders. The authors conclude:

We find that congresswomen secure roughly 9 percent more spending from federal discretionary programs than congressmen. This amounts to a premium of about $49 million per year for districts that send a woman to Capitol Hill. Finally, we find that women’s superiority in securing particularistic benefits does not hurt their performance in policymaking: women also sponsor more bills and obtain more cosponsorship support for their legislative initiatives than their male colleagues.

Pork-barrel legislation are laws that contain a benefit that goes directly to one location. It might mean funding to build a bridge in a community or to support a local army base. The people in the community like it, because it provides jobs for locals. Congressional leaders like to pass these bills, because they can go back home and tell the people who vote for them, their constituency, that they took care of them. Their tax money is going to benefit them and not somebody thousands of miles away. 

So, why are women more likely to sponsor pork-barrel legislation? Other research may provide the answer.

One of the authors that I read for that internship so many years ago was David Mayhew. Mayhew argues that all congressmen engage in three activities: credit-claiming, advertising, and position-taking. (My undergraduate mnemonic device for memorizing those activities was CAP.) These activities are necessary to get reelected. 

Some speculate that women have to work harder than men to get re-elected and therefore have to spend more time taking credit for sponsoring legislation with their constituency. They can tell their constituency that they were responsible for that bridge, which they use every day and was built by contractors in the community. Men have to take credit for legislation also, but they just don't have to do it as much as women do.

Is this a positive development? Many people believe that pork-barrel legislation is not the best use of government money. On the other hand, people reward congressional leaders that sponsor this legislation by re-electing them. People like pork-barrel legislation when it means benefits for themselves; they just don't like it when other people get it.

Do you believe that women have a different leadership style than men? Is it important to increase the number of women in Congress? Will women change their governing style if they don't have to work so hard to be re-elected and if there is a larger group of women in Congress?

Hecklers From the Back Benches

Two days ago, President Obama gave a speech on health care reform. At one point in the speech, he said that there were many misconceptions about his plan out there. He said that there would be no "death panels" for old people to determine whether or not they should receive expensive, life-saving procedures. He also said that this plan would not cover illegal aliens. From the audience, Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina shouted out "You lie!"

I was watching Obama's speech on CNN's website and I had Twitter up on another window. I use Twitter to follow various political pundits and activists. Their reaction to Wilson's remark was instantaneous. Within seconds, someone had identified who he was. Minutes later, his wikipedia page was changed. One hour later, prominent bloggers had identified who his opponent was in the upcoming election and called for donations to his campaign. Two days later, that opponent has received campaign donations for more than $700,000.

As a scholar of Internet politics, I am fascinated by the dialogue that occurs on the Internet, as well as the speed that information flows and the ability to form rapid responses. Some have said that Twitter has been used most effectively by conservatives. The Joe Wilson incident certainly shows that liberals are also using Twitter effectively.

On a morning news show this morning, one pundit said that Joe Wilson's shout demonstrates that the weakening respect for the presidency, which began in the Clinton administration and has only accelerated. I'm not sure if that's true or not. Nixon and the Watergate scandal was a serious blow to the presidency. No president will ever win the awe and respect of the public and the media as the pre-Nixon presidents.

The Wilson incident also brings up the question of how Congress should behave. Traditionally, the Congress in the United States has always been formal. Congressional representatives refer to each other as the "Fine Senior Senator from New York" and decorum is maintained during discussion periods. Legislative bodies in other countries are much more boisterous. There are shouts, heckles, and cheers from the backbenches during speeches and debates. Here's a sample of a debate in England's Parliament:

As a result of a two word shout from Congressman Wilson, he's going to face a tough fight in November and he's had to apologize to the president for his behavior. It was shocking by American standards, but it's commonplace elsewhere.

Do you think that Wilson's comments were disrespectful and disruptive of intellectual debate? Do you think he should receive censure from Congress? Or do you think that Congress should start behaving more like Parliament? Is there something very democratic about those shouts from the backbenches and the questioning of presidents and prime ministers?

Online Petitions

by Laura McKenna

When I was a kid, the running joke was that dad always stole our black magic markers. We had every other color in our art kits, except for black. Why? Because dad used them to make protest signs. And then he would round up the three of us to march around in a circle with other people protesting something or another.

Before he was a marker-stealing dad, he attended civil rights marches and anti-war rallies in DC. He even had a confrontation with Dan Rather, because Rather chose to interview the long haired hippies at the rallies instead of the clean cut college kids, who were the majority of the protesters. Later, after we arrived, he got involved in local politics. He became involved in environmental policy and ran for office on a third party.

Should They Look Like Me?

By Laura McKenna

In 2001, at the University of California at Berkeley, Sonia Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Sotomayor has been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Obama. She is under much scrutiny as the public tries to guess how she will rule on hot button issues, such as Affirmative Action, abortion, immigration, and church-state issues. That 2001 statement has been the focus of much controversy in the past couple of weeks.

In that speech, Sotomayor seems to say that her background enabled her to have a unique understanding of the nuances in cases that involved minorities and women. A judge with a different background would not be as sensitive. 

Rush Limbaugh has been quick to call her a racist for those remarks, but her comments can not be brushed off so easily. It taps into an old debate in America. Does race and gender influence decision-making?

In political science, we use the terms, descriptive representation and substantive representation.

Descriptive representation is the belief that political representatives should reflect the ethnic and gender composition of their constituency. A representative from the Harlem district should be black, while the representative from Utah should be white and Mormon. In addition, the entire body should be 50% female.

Substantive representation is the belief that representatives should reflect the political preferences of their constituencies, and their skin color and gender are irrelevant. An old white guy can effectively advocate for the needs of a poor, minority population.

In one study, Carol M. Swain explored this issue by looking at Congressional voting decisions. She found that liberal white members of Congress represented black interests as strongly as did black representatives. Liberal white Congressmen had nearly the same voting records as their black counterparts.

However, these findings may not necessarily be applied to Supreme Court justices. Decision making may be more simple for members of Congress than Supreme Court judges. They are able to mirror decision making of their colleagues, and they have case work and the need for reelection to keep them very attuned to their constituency's needs. A Supreme Court has few colleagues and no regular contact with the public. In that case, perhaps the need for descriptive representation is more critical.

This matter is far from settled. It will be interesting to see if this matter is discussed during the confirmation hearings over the summer.

Exceptions to the First Amendment

Last week, the Obama administration reversed an 18-year ban on news coverage of the return of war dead, allowing photographs of flag-covered caskets when families of the fallen troops agree.

The ban was put in place during the first Gulf War, because the administration felt that these images were too powerful. No Americans would agree to go to war, they argued, if they were forced to view those powerful images. Since national security requires that the public is willing to defend its nation, the press has not been able to publish these photographs for 18 years.

The First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the media. The United States takes its First Amendment very seriously and, as a result, we have one the freest presses in the world. Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are certain important exceptions to these freedoms.

Freedom of speech and the press does not permit libel. If a newspaper publishes lies about you that damages your reputation, you have the right to sue them in court and seek monetary compensation. The Courts have clearly ruled that obscenity is not permitted free speech. However, the language regarding the definition of obscenity is so broad that, in effect, there are few regulations on pornography.

The other exception to the freedom of the press involves national security. The press can be prevented from publishing information that could result in harm for our troops or endanger the nation as a whole. No newspaper would be permitted to publish the  coordinates of our troops in Afghanistan or provide information about our defense systems. However, the courts have had stated that the government must be careful to not overstep this right to withhold sensitive information. (See the Pentagon papers and The New York Times v. United States (1971).)

The images of dead coming home from war in flag draped pine boxes is  a powerful image. There's no doubt that that there is a dead person inside, and it resonates much more with the public than abstract casualty numbers. Some say that had the public seen the images of dead soldiers coming back from Europe, we would have never fought WWII.

Other say that the public has a right to see these images in order to better understand all the facts of the war. If the press is prevented from publishing these pictures, then they may be prevented from publishing other relevant facts. They also say that the photographs have no direct impact on national security, and therefore these restrictions endangered the First Amendment.

Drawing lines between permissible speech and dangerous speech is a constant challenge for the Supreme Court. Do you believe that the Obama administration made the right decision in this case?