Over Reaching Government?

In first month of the year, health care became a great issue. With the new health care act by the President, affecting business and personal life of its citizens. Another health bill was passed, the soda ban. Though this new bill will be in effect in City of New York, people's reaction booms as New York Health Board passed and signed the bill proposed by Mayor Micheal Bloomberg of New York City.

The soda ban restriction was set to hit NYC until Supreme court judge Milton Tingling ruled the decision that makes the soda ban upheld. Why? Because of its obvious loopholes. The soda ban limits restaurants, fast food establishments, delis, sport venues and movie theaters to sell less than 16 ounce of sugary soda drinks. What are the loopholes? The soda ban does not covered alcoholic beverage; which has more bad effects in our health, low calorie drinks like water or diet soda. The argument is that, why does the government will only have restriction ban with soda, wherein alcoholic beverage has a big contribution with obesity as well. If the government really care about the health of its people, why not have a restriction ban in all beverage that has a bad effects in people's health? Another is that the soda ban will only be implemented to the businesses that are regulated by the Health Department; which means people can still buy super size soda in grocery stores and some drug stores. In other word, the restriction ban will be useless if super size sodas are still available in the market. Judge Milton Tingling wrote in his ruling that “the loopholes in the new regulations defeated the limit's stated purpose”. In which he added that, “It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverage that have significantly higher concentration of sugar and/or calories on suspect grounds, the loopholes inherent in the rule.”

In Mayor Bloomberg's defense, he said that, 9 out of 10 of the New York City neighborhoods with the highest obesity rates also were neighborhoods with the highest rates of sugary drink consummation. The City officials said that it is proven that sugary drinks are harming New Yorkers' health.

 The government wanting to decrease obesity in the country thinks that restriction ban is the answer. First of all, the cause of obesity have lots of factors. Samantha Gross' article in Huffington Post, stated that, "the proposal wasn't backed up by scientific evidence and that it is not reasonable enough to blame or cite one product." Many critics said that, the government taking initiative to do something about the issue is a big baby step, though banning it is not the answer. With the soda ban restriction, comes along ruling the lives of people. It's like taking away the freedom to choose what to drink and how much. My argument is, why do the government interfere in the individual, daily lives of people. It just made it look that the government wants us to think that they care with the lives of people. I think with Mayor Bloomberg taking initiative to do something about obesity is a good start, but banning such thing only makes the impression that the government will take our freedom little by little by controlling small things with our daily lives. In his proposal, loopholes can be seen clearly. Banning soda, but not alcohol? It is that alcohol is far more dangerous to drink? Drunk driving is one thing, but how about the sickness you can get from drinking to much beer, vodka, whiskey and so on.



New York Soda Ban brings arguments to NYC Health Board
Bloomberg "confident" soda ban will be upheld

Blog 4: Releasing Immigrants, blamed it to the President.

"We, as nation will not go into default anytime soon because are revenue exceeds our debt payments. So the full fault and credit of the United States of America in not in danger unless the president put it in danger." - Mark Leveni

For the last few months, media's attention was in the issue of a $85 billion worth of spending cuts in government funding. National security, military operations, health care, education, disaster relief, unemployment benefits and scientific research are some who will be affected by the budget cut. In Huffington post, one article wrote by Lisa Miller, said that the budget cut will be for 9 years, starting this remainder of the year 2013 up to the end of 2021; total of $1.2 trillion budget cuts, spread for over 9 years.

National security was part of the government budget cut, and according to Judson Burger of Fox news, the Pinal county jail of Arizona is experiencing the effects of budget cut, releasing mostly five hundred of illegal immigrants. Sheriff Paul Babue of Pinal County, Arizona said that “ Immigration and Custom Enforcements released more than 500 detainees in his county alone over the weekend... and that the ICE officials have said that they plan to release a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants.” Though the numbers given were in dispute by the ICE officials. ICE officials confirmed releasing illegal immigrants, but said it was only 303.

Though Mr. Burger didn't wrote his feelings or thoughts in this article. He laid information, which is both parties side of story. He laid facts, as if showing to his reader the negative effects of the budget cut. Mr. Burger made a objective journalism by getting both sides of the story. He did a unbiased article; not letting his own opinion affect the decision of his reader. He laid information and facts given by both sides.

In my opinion, obviously the sequester has a big, bad effect in terms of the national security. Last nigth, i heard that the government gave some big amount of big money to a foreign country. In this case, why does the government will give such a big amount of money if the country face a big problem financially.  I'm not saying the government should not help other country, but what I'm trying to convey is that, the government should minimize the amount of money given to other country, they should think if it is really necessary. Other thing is the spending of the government with non-sense, and personal expense. The government should minimize the spending, not the fundings, specially those fundings that benefits most american; like the national security and health care. The government should prioritize the safety of its citizen.

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/dhs-to-release-thousands-illegal-immigrants-blaming-budget-cuts/)