The Foolishness of the New FDA Labeling Requirements

This past Tuesday, the FDA finalized new regulations, obligated by the Affordable Care Act, that mandates the display of calorie counts on menus and vending machine labels and covers food and beverages, including alcohol, as well as businesses like “’movie theaters, sports stadiums, amusement parks, bowling alleys and miniature golf courses that serve prepared foods.’  Moreover, the new rules “would apply to any restaurant or other establishment with more than 20 locations that sells "restaurant-type food."

Nevertheless, does mandatory labeling actually work to reduce obesity and change public perceptions of fast food?

Certainly, these questions have been ignored by the federal government and the FDA as they quickly advance their plans in another “successful” attempt to address obesity that follow in the wake of 18 states and cities that have menu-labeling regulations in effect. Despite these local passages of such illogical regulations, studies such as one from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University who examined 1121 adults at two New York City McDonalds where menu-labeling is compulsory, found that “A majority…ate more than the recommended intake for a meal…[and] neither type of information had an impact on the number of calories consumed, compared to the group with no information.” Clearly, menu-labeling fails to alter the actions of consumers who have already decided they want to buy a certain product to feed their tastes.

Even with contrasting views among industry groups for and against the law, the law will drastically affect food service businesses and their offerings for the worst. Businesses like grocery stores, forced between doing calorie counts for servings of the thousands of offered foods, will shrink their product offerings and display more profitable ones like unhealthy, high caloric foods such as cookies.

Undoubtedly, the new regulations ignore concrete scientific evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrates menu-labeling does not change the behavior of consumers into consuming healthier foods and will impose expensive burdens upon businesses according to the Food Marketing Institute that states the new rules will cost more than a billion dollars, for futile public health goals. Instead of these nearsighted regulations and government force to uselessly change the behaviors of people, the government must leave the market alone and let businesses and consumers decide what is best for them. If consumers seek to consume and buy healthier foods, businesses respond through reducing unhealthy options and offering healthier foods, as is currently happening. Therefore, I urge the abolition of these regulations.

New Ozone Rules: Maybe Not So Good?

The National Weather Service’s air quality index for ozone reports that 60 - 75 ppb is “moderate” while 0 - 59 ppb is “Good”. The EPA(Environmental Protection Agency) has recently proposed to strengthen air quality regulations so that ground-level ozone levels are between 65-70 parts per billion(ppb) down from the current 75 ppb set in 2008. The EPA predicts that this will prevent up to a potential 960,000 child deaths from asthma. The agency also predicts that $6.4 to $13 billion for a 70 ppb standard and $19 to $38 billion for a 65 ppb standard would be saved annually from health costs associated with asthma, missed school days, premature deaths, and heart attacks.

Red: Areas violating a 60ppb standard
Orange: Areas anticipated to violate

These numbers sound high and mighty, but what’s the catch? There’s always a catch. Ross Eisenberg, VP of energy and resources at the National Association of Manufactures (NAM) says in a National Geographic article, “It will be the most expensive regulation of all time.” A study commissioned by the NAM reported that these new regulations could cost America $270 billion in GDP per year and 2.9 million jobs per year on average through 2040. The American Petroleum Institute predicts that PA will be expected to lose up to $193.8 billion in Gross State Product from 2017 to 2040 and 197,126 jobs annually.

So what’s the problem again? Ya, you guessed it, $$$ v. Environment. Of course money, jobs, work, and a good economy are all essential to our nation’s continued development and prosperity, but as a nation we have to decide where to draw the line, before it’s too late.  

Money in the air!! I don’t care!

Tom Steyer, a billionare hedge fund manager, reportedly spent $57 million of his own money on this November’s midterm elections to elect democrats. You would expect money = win, but things didn’t exactly turn out that way. Of the 7 democrats that Steyer and his group, NextGen Climate, spent a total of $85 million on, only 3 won. This sounds like a tremendous lost of money to a poor little soul like me, but apparently the money was “incredibly well spent”.

What did Steyer accomplish? He succeeded in bringing the issue of climate onto the frontlines, when it had always been a side issue. Steyer was able to create 350,000 “climate voters” that would help bring environmental issues to their local governments, hopefully increasing their numbers for the 2016 presidential election.

So why did so many Democrats lose despite an overwhelming amount of money being injected into their campaign? A Huffington Post article blames “Cognitive Dissonance”. Although a majority of Americans believe that global warming is a problem, many decided to vote in Republicans with opposing views. Some Republicans are skeptical of global warming, while others doubt its existence. How in the world did this happen? The ole' blame the Obama tactic, although many of his environmental policies have been supported by a majority of Americans, many voters were either too upset or uninformed to make a smart decision. The consequences? Probably major repeals in Obama's environmental protection policies. Good job guys! Murica'

Open Borders - For Prosperity and for the Future of America

On Thursday, President Obama revealed a comprehensive executive order on immigration policy, "offering temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, along with an indefinite reprieve from deportation."  Currently, there are 11.4 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States and both political parties agree that the immigration system is broken and needs major overhaul. 

However, conservatives have castigated President Obama's plan, affirming that he does not have the power to delay deportation without legislation. President Obama has countered that he has a "limited power to act" that relies on the principle that law enforcement can choose where to focus their efforts. 

Nevertheless, it seems that the executive order will not be the last word on immigration reform. Ultimately, a radical reformation of the immigration system is required; an open borders policy that affirms the overwhelming benefits of immigration - legal and illegal. 

Firstly, immigration poses little risk to immigrant receiving countries including the US. In fact, in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 responded to this misconception...“Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that…tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." That means that immigrants beneficially work in jobs in a variety of sectors and contribute tax revenue through either income taxes, sales taxes, and/or other direct taxes.

Under open borders, labor can migrate to places where it can be most productively employed. That results in greater innovation because people can move to places where their skills and talents can be put to efficient uses. Greater high-tech innovation would happen if more high-skilled immigrants were able to move to the US, resulting in the creation of more Googles (Google was co-founded by a Russian, Sergey Brin). Many immigrants create their own businesses which heavily expand work opportunities for local communities and facilitate the movement of innovations to the market. All of these immigrants will allow an open border policy to lessen tensions and create peace between countries  as countries recognize that hostilities will negate the trade and economic benefits both countries receive from immigration. At last, open borders would boost world GDP by 50-150%.

Thus, I urge Congress and President Obama to establish open borders and realize that the undeniable benefits of immigration outweigh any harmful effects of illegal and legal immigration. 

Environment v. $$$$ Round 2: The Keystone XL Pipeline

The expansion of the Keystone Pipeline system that runs from Alberta, Canada to Oklahoma has been a controversial topic in the U.S. since its completion in 2010. Obama has opposed it multiple times especially its job projections. But lets look at the environmental concerns that many critiques are worried about.

1. Crude Oil from Albert has been reported to leave a bigger carbon footprint than conventional oil. The Time article states that to get usable crude from oil sands requires extra energy and in the process leaves a 10-15% larger carbon footprint.

The article also reports that "massive open pit mines" are required to extract the oil, destroying forests and the local environment. These damages take years to recover from and leaves the area in a state of disarray after there is nothing left to profit from and all the oil has been extracted.

2. The pipeline could pose a threat to the Ogallala Aquifer,one of the world's largest underground sources of fresh water, in Nebraska. In an independent study by Dr. John Stansbury, a Proffesor of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering at the University of Nebraska, a conclusion was made that in reality a major spill would cause far greater damage than in a "worst case scenario" predicted by TransCanada. A spill of tar sands oil is extremely difficult to clean up because the oil separates into two components. The lighter part dissolves into the water and floats downstream. The second heavier portion sinks to the bottom, making it hard to recover. Stansbury references Canadian company Enbridge's Kalamazoo Spill in 2010. It had contaminated more than 40 miles of the river and even now hasn't been completely cleaned up.

TransCanada has already had 14 leaks in their existing Kestone pipeline, the biggest leak being 400 barrels. Can we really trust a company that has had 14 leaks already and still looks to expand?

Besides the environment factor, the Keystone XL pipeline could generate $100 billion in profits for the Koch brothers. They have also given up to $50 million to Congressional members who have supported legislation for the pipeline. Should we really continue to support people that are known to look the other way on the climate issue? Is a few thousand jobs worth the potential disaster that a spill will create?

Chris Matthews says, "It's going  to happen. It will happen. It'll happen either this year or next year or after ... because the country wants jobs, and energy is always a primary concern of the American people." If the American people care more about jobs and energy and making money then the environmental issue will just be thrown out the window. Can we get our priorities straight America?

Support for the Keystone XL Pipeline

On November 14, the House successfully voted 251-161 to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, leaving the bill to be sent to the Senate that will vote on Tuesday. In the last six years, the Obama administration has repeatedly stalled any attempts to pass the bill through the State Department's approval process of the pipeline over environmental concerns and objections to claims about increased jobs and prosperity resulting from the pipeline.  According to Heavy.com, “ The proposed Phase IV, Keystone XL, would begin in Alberta and extend to Steele City, Neb., essentially replacing phase I of the existing pipeline with a more direct route and "carry more than 800,000 crude oil barrels a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast." Ultimately, what is clear is that the Keystone XL Pipeline will increase jobs and prosperity for America and actually reduce any large environmental risks.

The proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline have maintained that its expansion will bring thousands of new jobs to the U.S. while President Obama has rebutted with "The most realistic estimates are this might create...2,000 jobs during the construction...which might take a year or two, and then after that...somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs.” However, in an massive environmental review of the project in January 2014, the State Department found that, "The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period...[and] once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs  and provide immediate non-governmental economic stimulus to local economies.

Environmental concerns that discuss how the Keystone XL pipeline will accelerate climate change have well intentions but are meaningless. According to the same State Department report, "blocking or approving…the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a "significant" impact on overall greenhouse-gas emissions and future tar-sands expansion...because...most of Alberta's oil will likely find a way to get to the market anyway — if not by pipeline, then by rail." In addition to this, if the pipeline is blocked and oil producers are forced to ship oil through rail or truck, "overall transportation emissions would increase by 28 to 42 percent." 

In consideration of all these factors, should the federal government reject a pipeline that would otherwise have its oils transported through dangerous alternatives and also lose the opportunity for the U.S. to achieve energy security? Clearly, America must move forward and I urge the Obama Administration and the Senate to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. 

Solution Aversion: Say what? I CANT HEAR YOU

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency itself acknowledges the continuous breakdown of our Earth’s natural environment and the dangers that it imposes. On the EPA’s website, a page dedicated solely to future climate change lists the key U.S. and global projections on issues such as temperature, precipitation, ice, and sea level changes. These include:

• Southern U.S. states are expected to experience 2x more days with temperatures above 90°F in a high emissions situation.
• As the ocean warms the intensity of hurricanes will increase.
• Ocean acidification will severely harm marine species.
• Snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere will decrease by 15% by 2100.

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific data from both NASA and NOAA as well that support these predictions. How close these predictions are and how strongly the climate is affected depends on the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. If this is so, why is it taking the U.S. so long to get on top of their game? A recent small study by Duke University points to “solution aversion”, a phenomena that occurs in many common political disputes.

Solution aversion, in simple terms, is ignoring the problem because the solution is undesired. For example, what is a popular solution to the climate issue? More government regulations. What do Republicans generally oppose? More government regulations. What do we do then? Ignore the problem cuz the solution suks!

In the study, Republicans and Democrats read a statement claiming "global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century." When the proposed solution was some form of government regulation, only 22% of Republicans said that the temperature would really rise that much. When the solution was "the free market, such as with innovative green technology", 55% of them agreed with the statement. No notable change was recorded for the Democrats.

So what's the solution? The solution lies within us the people that will be affected by our government's inaction. We can either get our government to start banging out bills or leave them be until it's too late.  It's like watching a test date inevitably approaching, but doing nothing to prepare for it. We know the consequences, we can see it slowly happening in our life times right now, but still we do nothing and when the test date finally arrives, when it's finally too late to do anything, there is nothing we CAN do. And what are we left with? A big fat F across the whole Earth.

The White House

Natural Resources Defense Council

Environmental Protection Agency

A Free Market for Illicit Drugs

On November 3, 2014, 55% of Oregon voters approved the Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative, Measure 91 that would legalize recreational marijuana for adults ages 21 and older and allow these people to possess up to eight ounces of "dried" marijuana and up to four plants. In addition to this passage, Alaska and Washington D.C. have also passed similar measures nearly a year after Colorado and Washington's legalization of marijuana. Nevertheless, these recently passed legalization policies have designed a framework of burdensome taxation and regulation of marijuana that will not effectively eliminate or reduce the black market for marijuana and even other drugs. Perhaps, a more radical solution must be sought that can ultimately eliminate the illicit drug trade and allow the legal harvest and consumption of all illicit drugs; a free market for drugs.

 

First, let's face the cold hard facts:

"In 2005, the United Nations estimated the global illegal drug trade is worth more than $320 billion. It also estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world."

"The U.S. is the No. 1 nation in the world in illegal drug use."

"500,000 people are in prison today for committing drug crimes."

These are just some of the few statistics illustrating the failure of the War on Drugs to decrease illicit drug consumption and violence rates. Evidently, it has dramatically resulted in the militarization of the police, and a cycle of poverty and violence in poor communities that lack important figures who are in jail because of drug offenses.

Instead, a free market for illegal drugs would, according to a Cato study, "save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws" after having already spent $1 trillion, make it viable to release prisoners who have committed non-violent drug offenses, increase economic wealth, and reverse the trend of continuous government encroachment of civil liberties in the past several decades.

However, it must not be assumed that the government should have an interest in protecting what individuals consume.

As free individuals, we must decide what is best for our bodies; harmful or not harmful. If the government decides this decision for us, what prevents their regulation of anything that can truly cause us harm? In the words of Ludwig Von Mises, "why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?"

Introduction to Environmentalism and Libertarianism

Hi fellow Americans, as political bloggers, we hope to foster new discussions on environmentalism as well as libertarianism through discussing our perspectives on current issues. For the uninitiated, environmentalism is a broad movement focusing on employing individual and governmental power to address the health of the environment and for environmental protection. On the other hand, libertarianism is a distinct philosophy dedicated towards advocating minimal state intervention in people's lives.

These two ideologies often conflict with each other as libertarianism is heavily focused on individual freedom while environmentalism seeks governmental and communal power to combat environmental issues. However, there are cases where the values of libertarianism such as private property rights in regards to natural resources can be extremely beneficial for environmentalism.

Nevertheless, we aim to explore these excellent topics throughout the entire year and definitely collaborate on issues that involve the two values.

Thus, let us continue on this journey and welcome to these new perspectives.

-Talaial and Jinxing

Will Tom Wolf take Pennsylvania by storm or will Corbett remain on his throne?

With Wolf up 15% in polls 2 days before game time, Corbett's run as governor is on the ropes. Pennsylvania has had enough of Corbett's ignorance of schools and support of big business. One major issue that is attracting many voters across the state is education. Wolf has advocated for strong education policies that will both fuel the economy and satisfy the many unhappy citizens of Pennsylvania. 50% of voters cite dissatisfaction with Corbett, something that many teachers of Philadelphia cite as well. Wolf proposes a 5% severance tax on gas and an income tax that will help offset the $1 Billion cut on education made by Corbett. With this funding the school district will be free to lower property taxes. With a strong educational system, Wolf believes that more jobs will be created and will stay in PA.

On other issues, Wolf opposes the privatization of liquor stores and supports the ban of the sale of assault weapons. He also advocates for legislation that would enable a broader use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The problem though, will Wolf be able to implement all of his policies with a legislature controlled by the Republican party?


On the other side, Corbett blames the revenue to the education cuts as a result of an expiration of a federal stimulus. In reality though, Corbett allowed the funding of education to drop instead of using state revenues to maintain the Basic Education Funding formula. On the good side though, Corbett supports the privatization of the state liquor system, which could bring up to a billion dollars in revenue.

Whether Corbett wins reelection or Wolf carries the votes of the dissatisfied, there is no doubt that there will be major changes to the fiscal policies of PA. In one candidate the education of our state will be adequately funded, but at what cost? Money does not just magically appear because someone was voted in, it has to come from somewhere.(Let me give you a hint: YOU) But on the other hand do we want to entrust the next 4 years of our state to Corbett? Whatever happens, I feel like Pennsylvanians will be losing something and will have to live with their decision. 

The 2014 Pennsylvanian Gubernatorial Election and Liberties Beyond

Due to the political attack ads and misleading information from both sides of the political aisle characterizing the 2014 Pennsylvanian gubernatorial race, PA voters remain uncertain of who to vote for in the Tuesday election. However, one thing is clear; voting for Wolf will affirm his planned disastrous economic policies of instituting a progressive income tax that differs from PA’s 3.07% flat rate tax, a 5% severance tax on PA fracking, and disregarding the current $49 billion public pension crisis, which will ultimately reverse the economic growth made under Governor Corbett. Instead, PA voters should consider the record of Governor Corbett whose economic policies have decreased the PA unemployment rate from 8 percent when he took office to 5.7 percent in September and have resulted in 180,000 additional jobs to PA’s economy. After all, should voters vote for Wolf, a candidate with unspecific plans to increase the size of the PA government through massive taxation?

During Governor Corbett’s tenure, he balanced “four budgets without raising broad-based taxes” and passed a “$29 billion budget.” Under Wolf, what we will see are higher taxes accompanied with larger spending that will result in the same unsustainable fiscal crisis seen under previous Governor Rendell. Corbett has also upheld his promise of refusing to raise new taxes except lifting the cap on the gasoline tax and supporting the impact fee on gas wells to provide local revenue.

Furthermore, while claims from teacher unions, teachers, and students alike assert that Corbett has cut $1 billion in funding from PA schools, the evidence portrays the contrary. Under Governor Corbett, “state education funding has increased by about $1.5 billion since he took office,” and he signed “legislation earlier this year to create a Basic Education Funding Commission to recommend a fair school funding formula.” However, Corbett should have strived to ensure a fair funding formula for schools in PA earlier in his term and will surely proceed through this process as the second governor of PA.

Nevertheless, in consideration of all these successes under Governor Corbett, I urge PA voters to vote for Tom Corbett as the next Governor of Pennsylvania. However, if you still have doubts, please research each candidate thoroughly to make an educated vote. Nonetheless, Wolf’s policies will decrease long term growth in PA and ensure that future Pennsylvanians will have to deal with the terrifying public pension crisis.