The War on Fat

According to the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, better than six in ten American adults are overweight. Better than one in four are "obese." By 2015, trends say that will be three out of four overweight and two out of five obese.

If this doesn't include you - if you're not reading this while shoving a Twinkie down your throat - it surely includes people you know and care about. And even if it doesn't, it includes your money. Because the obesity epidemic is costing us big.

And by "big" I mean obesity-related illnesses (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) cost Americans nearly $150 billion annually. That's ten times the cost of the new jobs bill Harry Reid is so proud of (an issue I'll be tackling tomorrow). That's one fifth of a TARP. It's about one quarter of our annual defense budget.

Fatties are officially bending the cost curve, to borrow the political jargon of the day. Problem is, they're bending it in the wrong direction.

It's with that in mind that Michelle Obama started her "Let's Move" program, which is aimed at fighting childhood obesity. And even better, New York's commissioner of health, Dr. Richard Daines, today talked about Governor Patterson's proposed soda tax on the always excellent Brian Lehrer show.

Listen here.

Some highlights:

• More than 10 million New Yorkers are overweight or obese
• The tax aims for three goals: reducing sugared beverage consumption, reducing long-term health-care costs, and bringing in $450 million dollars in new revenue to be spent on health care
• drinks that have more than 10 calories of added sugar per 8 ounces would be taxed 1 cent per ounce

This is both significant and sensible. Significant because giving people an economic incentive to take more personal responsibility for their health has worked before - look at how much smoking has decreased in America as cigarette taxes have gone up.

Sensible because this is both a long and short-term solution. Long term it has potential to slow or halt the obesity epidemic. Short term it puts money in the state's coffers for other health-related programs while only taking a chunk out of an industry (sugared drinks) that runs at a 20% profit and can afford to rejigger their business model.

It doesn't get much better than that.

Now, people will argue (and presumably, vote) against this because the word "tax" provokes a Pavlovian response from most of the populace. And there is a certain percentage of Friedman disciples who will argue against it because they're inhuman sociopaths.

But the reality is we don't live in some fantasy land where people make the right choices all the time. Or even most of the time. We live in a reality where sixty percent of adults allow themselves to become overweight. We live in a reality where kdis and teenagers get as much as 10% of their daily calories from sugared drinks.

In this instance, it's the state's job to step in and protect the populace from those who are irresponsible.

And there's no question that the obese and overweight are being irresponsible. But they're not just gambling with their health or the health of their kids. They're gambling with your money and mine.

Tax 'em. Tax 'em like they're smokers. Just because they can't show some common sense doesn't mean that we can't.

EDIT: It's come to my attention that this may have come off with too snarky and mean-spirited. Which wasn't really my intention (ok maybe a little bit).

Anyway, the point isn't to make fat people feel bad for being fat. Especially since studies have shown that even people of normal weight are at greater risk of developing expensive/deadly diseases down the road if they consume an overabundance of sugar and/or corn syrup.

So no, the point isn't to be a dick. The point is to add some short-term consequences to an action that already has a ton of long-term consequences.

And as a reader pointed out, taxing nutrition-less drinks is just one part of it. Following Finland's model of subsidizing produce instead of, say, corn, wheat and dairy, is another worthwhile step. One that's maybe even more important.

But probably more farfetched as well, since anyone who proposes cutting corn subsidies is guaranteed to lose Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and a few others out there. Maybe Evan Bayh was right - this shit's broken.

Go Ahead, Make Me

On the heels of my rant yesterday, we have this missive from the White House:

Gibbs: We Didn't Include The Public Option Because It Doesn't Have The Votes

And it brings to mind this old one-liner from then-newly elected Franklin Roosevelt to leaders of the progressive movement:

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Adam Green, of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, has taken that ethos to heart:

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners," Green said. "Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. ... That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner."

So basically, this is just a reminder. A reminder that Obama, like Roosevelt before him, like your local congressperson regardless of party, or your local school board member, is focused primarily on one plank in his platform: Re-election.

Change doesn't happen from the top-down. It happens from the ground up. Make Obama's re-election incumbent upon his delivering a public option, and then we'll start seeing change we can believe in. Until then, he's just another politician.

I want every toy I see

Remember when you were six and your parents brought you to Toys 'R Us or Kay-Bee's? Remember running to the GI Joe aisle and picking out your favorite... then picking out one more... then two more after that... and eventually returning to your folks with a double-armful of crap that you absolutely had to have?

If you say "no," you're lying. But that's immaterial.

What is material is the fact that most of America has never gotten out of that six year old mindset.

This latest poll from Rasmussen adds a measure of clarity to otherwise muddy waters. A plurality of republicans want tax cuts no matter what it means for the national deficit. A plurality of democrats want tax hikes to balance the budget.

Republicans want to cut spending. But not on Social Security, Medicare or national defense. The three of which combine for about 75% of our national budget now, and will scrape 90% in a decade.

Democrats don't want to cut spending. But they believe a balanced budget is essential to good governance.

Everyone hates "big government." But don't touch our favorite programs - our biggest government! For all the crying and hand wringing over TARP and the stimulus package, combined they'll just about equal one payment on the interest of our health care debt by 2025. Let's just keep our heads buried in the sand for a while longer, shall we?

Because we want what we want with no regard for what's going to happen a year from now, let alone fifteen. We want what we want with no regard for reality. We are all the six year old kid running through the toy store.

And yes, President Obama, we know this is largely George Bush's fault. We knew this a long time before we elected you, and as a matter of fact we hired you to fix this mess. It was the highlight of your job application. "He talks to us like adults!" we all marveled, especially after the Reverend Wright speech in Philadelphia. George Bush was the spendthrift parent who would ring up massive credit card bills and buy his kid everything in the store. You were the level head who would make us go back and return the items we had picked out.

You were the parent who would risk disappointing his kids because it was the right thing to do. You wouldn't govern by polls or ideology. You'd cut what needed to be cut and tax what needed to be taxed.

So when I see a story like this - White House Health Care Plan Revealed Today - coming a full 13 months after you took office, it's hard to give you a mulligan. Yes, it's a shame that you're surrounded by ineffectual dweebs in the senate and self-absorbed half-wits in the house, but you're a pragmatist and a leader, remember? Herding this group of followers should be right in your wheelhouse.

It is time, if I may borrow a phrase from Red State America, to git 'r done. The tough choices need to be made now, even at the risk of some seats in congress. And enough nonsense about needing bipartisanship. After the last eight years, we all know that the president can pretty much do whatever he wants and nobody's going to be able to call him on it. Follow that Bush doctrine of executive power if you must.

Either way, you've let us run around with our armful of toys long enough. Be the adult now.

Fun With Analogies

When Clinton was Captain of the Ship of State, it was smooth sailing. Even though, near the end of his stewardship, he pointed that sucker right at an iceberg. However, in an act of foresight if not courage, he left detailed instructions on how to avoid said iceberg.

Captain Bush burned those instructions, called for "full speed ahead," and hit the iceberg squarely, resulting in a giant gash in the ship. Rather than repair the damage, Bush then led his friends to the stateroom and began stealing the silverware.

Obama became captain on a platform of repairing the damage and getting the thieves out of the stateroom, but so far all he's managed to do is get about half the people on board to start bailing - using teacups. While the other half tell them they're doing it wrong.

Obama's second concern is more frustrating and far less likely to melt away: the impression that his Administration—and he personally—is anti-business.

At least on this day, business and the economy topped Obama's agenda. Twenty steps from the Oval Office, GE's (GE) Jeff Immelt, Honeywell's (HON) David Cote, and several other CEOs huddled with White House officials to provide industry input on climate change.

All things being equal, I'm more concerned with the gash in the ship than "industry input on climate change." Hey, Captain Barry... fix the damn gash in the damn ship.

Fun party... who's the host?

Sarah Palin was the guest of honor at a Tea Party convention in Nashville this weekend. Six hundred people showed up, paying $500 a head to listen to Sarah America call for a new revolution here in the States.

Totally ignoring the legality or her call to arms, I think it's important to first address just what the Tea Party is, who's running it, and who it's aiming to help. According to the head of the Staten Island Tea Party, Lorraine Scanni, this rant from Rick Santelli on CNBC was the Party's genesis:



So nominally the Tea Party is for "smaller government" and eliminating "interference" in the lives of Joe six-pack.

But thus far, at least, people like Scanni are unable to elucidate the "how" of that. When asked by the always excellent Brian Lehrer why Santelli's rant was so inspiring, she wasn't able to give a coherent answer. When asked what role the government would play were the Tea Party to come to power - the caller who posed the question mentioned things like negotiation of overseas trading rights, interstate commerce, regulations on things like food and drugs - Scanni replied only "elimination of taxes and an increase national defense."

Those two things don't go together, for what it's worth. If you want a fleet of billion dollar, state of the art fighter jets, you have to pay for it somehow.

Asked about where the Tea Party stands on the health care debate, Scanni's response was "we want Tort Reform." Which is fine, since a lot of folks like the idea of Tort Reform... except that Tort Reform is just another kind of "big government" interference.

When asked about the bank bailout, which is the Tea Party's least favorite thing ever, both Scanni and fellow guest Glenn Reynolds said "too big to fail is too big to exist! The trusts need to be broken up." A sentiment I'm right on board with.

But... and this is the "but" I just can't wrap my head around... BUT strong governmental anti-trust legislation means bigger government. Means interference with the natural cycles of economics and commerce. Means everything the Tea Party is nominally against in their mission statement. They were against it before they were for it.

So, for the time being, it's hard to take the Tea Party at all seriously from an ideological standpoint. They just seem like a bunch of angry folks whose only shared value is that anger. Certainly, the fact that Palin's claim to fame is running the biggest welfare state in US history didn't bother them much, but the idea of trusts really gets them going. As does the idea of a government enacting regulations to break the trusts.

Ideologically they're pretty much play-dough, and in the next six months, people like Scanni and Reynolds will become marginalized and we'll start seeing new, polished leaders who come from the Karl Rove mold. The Tea Party's not a particularly big movement yet, but they have traction and generate headlines. Any half decent politician's eyes should light up at the reality of that, and any half decent politician will be able to shape the Tea Party's anger and focus it.

Against what, I don't know. Funny part is, neither are they.

Some Weird-ass Cognitive Dissonance from Sarah Palin

From the never ending goldmine that is Sarah Palin's Twitter feed:

SarahPalinUSA: What's N.O.W. thinking? Censoring a pro-women/pro-child Super Bowl ad? Unbelievable. Pls see my FB post on this: http://tinyurl.com/y9oho5h

Oh, you bet I will.

"The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances...

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment. NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows’ message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances)...." [emphasis mine]

Does anything more need to be said?

I know, it's giving her too much credit to call this cognitive dissonance. It's just a really tortured attempt to hijack feminism for her own self-promotion. I get it.

At the same time, I have to admit... seeing how the pro-choice movement has successfully established the terms of this debate in their own favor gives me warm fuzzies inside. Once you start using your opponents' vocabulary, you basically concede defeat.

Congratulations on your choice, Mrs. Tebow. Because that is, indeed what it's all about: choice.

She Was Against Climate Change Before She Was For It

"Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature"

"Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng"

--Sarah Palin, via Twitter

Okay, I know these gems from our favorite twit were tweeted over a month ago. This is old, old news. But I've been thinking about this issue and puzzling over dear Sarah's strange change in attitude when it comes to the reality of global warming. (For what it's worth, about 12% of my brain is purely devoted to contemplating Sarah Palin, why she exists and what she means for the future of human existence. So don't ever be surprised to hear that she's been on my mind.)

As Governor of Alaska, Palin wasn't quite so skeptical about anthropogenic global warming as she seems to be today. Out of political necessity, she had to acknowledge the dire danger Alaska faces as glaciers melt and ocean levels rise. The evidence was too present and too immediate to ignore.

Nowadays (a whole 18 months later), she tweets a different tune.

I feel that this reversal on Palin's part truly exemplifies how, when it comes to Sarah's positions and ideologies, there really is no there there. Does she actually have a personal view on climate change? Would it matter if she did?

A lot of people I know powerfully dislike Sarah Palin or find her downright frightening, because to them she is an extreme right-wing ideologue, with all the corresponding ignorance and prejudices. I never really saw that in her, though. To me, she is just a very ambitious and self-entitled person, and ideology will always come second to political expediency for her.

At the same time, her mixed-up positions on climate change do reveal something quite interesting about Sarah.

You see, she has to be against the Copenhagen summit. She has to claim not to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Because her base, the tea-bagger types, reject the science. So she must also reject it in order to pander to them, her potentially most loyal supporters.

So that prompts me to ask: why would regular, middle- or working-class, conservative Americans care one way or the other about climate change? The answer, I think, is that they've been trained to do so by the powers that be in the Republican establishment, who are in thrall to big oil and other corporate interests. Those corporate interests stand to lose if man-made climate change is recognized as real and governments take steps to curb carbon emissions. So the Republican establishment has an interest in convincing its base that global warming is all a bunch of baloney.

The Republican party has been pandering to a certain demographic -- or collection of linked demographics -- for a few decades now (since Nixon's Southern strategy capitalized on Dixiecrat fear and racism; although it was Reagan who pioneered the more contemporary moral majority idea which persists today). That is, they rely upon the electoral loyalty of middle- and working-class, white, Christian, socially conservative Americans -- the "Joe Sixpacks." The Republicans have very successfully played on this group's prejudices, fears, and religious fervor. For decades. But the GOP has never been controlled by this voting base.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is not a GOP insider. She actually is one of those "regular Americans" who make up the party's base. She is, in a way, the fruit borne of thirty years of Republican and neocon political strategy. And now she's come back to bite them in the ass.

That's why you see this strange dynamic, wherein a woman who in all likelihood believes that global warming is an unstoppable sign of the end times (or else thinks nothing about it at all), is forced to take a position on it which makes no sense for her, in order to appeal to a voting base whose position makes no sense for them either. The GOP gives the people their talking points, then Sarah parrots them back to the people, and the GOP establishment looks at her and thinks, "Who the hell is this woman??"

She is what they have wrought. And she will be their downfall.

It's really quite amusing to watch