Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Nanny state

McDonald's is coming under fire for its inclusion of toys, specifically Shrek toys, in their Happy Meals. It's as if they think kids wouldn't want and parents wouldn't buy Happy Meals, and their supposedly obesity-causing food items, unless they included toys.

Although further intrusions of federal, state or local government into the affairs of a private business should raise eyebrows and objections, it's the following paragraph from the June 23rd L.A. Times story that bothers me.

"In April, Santa Clara County supervisors won praise from nutrition advocates but ridicule from many conservatives when they voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county. The supervisors gave fast food chains 90 days to voluntarily comply before the ordinance became effective."

Do I conclude from this paragraph that conservatives are not nutrition advocates or that nutrition advocates are liberals? Conservatives do care about nutrition; we just don't care for government bans on Happy Meal toys. Conservatives stand for choice. If McDonald's thinks they can increase sales by including toys in their Happy Meals, then they should be free to do so. Are they forcing parents to buy their Happy Meals or even their food? So far at least not in Wichita Falls. McDonald's can't force anyone to do anything; the state however can force people or businesses to do things or face fines and/or jail time. Conservatives oppose this type of state action.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Government Moratoriums

There is no doubt that the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the last month and a half is a premier disaster. The damage to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida will go far beyond environmental. While oil is big business along parts of that coast, so are fishing, hunting and tourism. I make no apologies for BP or any oil company that does not follow good engineering practices and the law when executing drilling, completion, production and transportation operations. I would not be surprised if BP does not go out of business after all of the lawsuits from federal and state governments as well as private businesses and individuals. At least maybe they will focus on just oil and gas instead of "green" energy.

Laws regarding commerce, whether it be oil and gas, fishing, transportation, etc., in federal waters should be enforced by the appropriate agency consistently over time and across industry players regardless of their lobbying efforts. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) which is under the authority of the Department of the Interior which is under the authority of the President, has the responsibility to enforce oil and gas laws, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee is their oversight authority.

According to CLTV-Chicago and the Center for Responsive Politics, BP spent $16 million lobbying Congress in 2009 and $3.5 million so far this year. Most of this money went to members of this oversight committee. President Obama was the largest recipient of BP campaign contributions in 2008 at $71,000 and second only to Senator McCain in total oil and gas campaign contributions in 2008 at $884,000. While I have no problem with companies contributing to politicians to encourage them to vote favorably for their business, I do have a problem when that money affects how the President enforces or does not enforce laws or how Congress does not thoroughly oversee their respective agencies.

The MMS declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater GOM drilling, cancelled the bi-annual GOM lease sale scheduled for this August, cancelled the 2012 lease sale off the Virginia coast and suspended Shell's permits to drill five exploratory wells in offshore Alaska. I believe that this is an over-reaction that will only further damage our already fragile economy even before this oil spill occurred. I realize that it is a natural political reaction that plays well to our emotions, but this move fails to put this disaster into perspective and consider the long-term implications of delaying exploration.

On May 24-25th, a full month after this spill occurred, USA Today/Gallup asked the following question of 1,029 adults: How serious a threat to the future wellbeing of the United States do you consider each of the following: terrorism, federal debt, healthcare costs, unemployment, illegal immigration, size and power of the federal government, having combat troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, environmental damage, size and power of large corporations and minority discrimination? In the "extremely serious" category, federal debt was second only to terrorism and environmental damage was eighth. Nearly 80% of those polled said that the debt was a very to extremely serious threat whereas only half said the same of environmental damage.

If the government places a moratorium, or freeze, on drilling to protect the environment, which is far from the top of the list of perceived threats to our nation's future wellbeing, why can they not also place a moratorium on spending instead of setting record deficits and debts and refusing to fundamentally reform the big three entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? While protecting the environment is important, the public outcry for debt reduction is far greater. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey declared that their $10.7 billion budget gap could be closed by essentially placing a moratorium, or freeze, on spending. He employed the Saul Alinsky method to eliminating problems...pick you target, isolate it and freeze it. Saul inspired the President; maybe Governor Christie can too.