February 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
Recently, the Obama administration called for a total ban on candy and soda in the nation’s schools. States are beginning to impose “sin taxes” on fat and sugar to dissuade people from eating junk food. Pricing strategies may well be a key to changing behavior, but others favor subsidies over punitive taxes, as a way to encourage people to eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains. The thought is that if you make it cheaper, people will eat more of it, more expensive and people will eat less.
Decades of behavioral economics research argues that consumers are not always so rational and the two strategies have never been tested head to head, to see which one most effectively alters calorie consumption. So, psychological scientist Leonard Epstein at University of Buffalo, decided to explore the persuasiveness of sin taxes and subsides in the laboratory.
Epstein and colleagues simulated a grocery store, “stocked” with images of everything from bananas and whole wheat bread to Dr. Pepper and nachos. A group of volunteers — all mothers — were given laboratory “money” to shop for a week’s groceries for the family. Each food item was priced the same as groceries at a real grocery nearby, and each food came with basic nutritional information.
The mother-volunteers went shopping several times in the simulated grocery. First they shopped with the regular prices, but afterward the researchers imposed either taxes or subsidies on the foods. That is, they either raised the prices of unhealthy foods by 12.5%, and then by 25%; or they discounted the price of healthy foods comparably. Then they watched what the mothers purchased.
To define healthy and unhealthy foods, the scientists used a calorie-for-nutrition value, or CFN, which is the number of calories one must eat to get the same nutritional payoff. For example, nonfat cottage cheese has a very low CFN, because it is high on nutrition but not on calories; chocolate chip cookies have a much higher CFN. The researchers also measured the energy density- essentially calories- in every food.
The results, just published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, show that taxes were more effective in reducing calories purchased over subsides. Specifically, taxing unhealthy foods reduced overall calories purchased, while cutting the proportion of fat and carbohydrates and upping the proportion of protein in a typical week’s groceries. By contrast, subsidizing the prices of healthy food actually increased overall calories purchased without changing the nutritional value at all. It appears that mothers took the money they saved on subsidized fruits and vegetables and treated the family to less healthy alternatives, such as chips and soda pop. Taxes had basically the opposite effect, shifting spending from less healthy to healthier choices. On the basis of this laboratory research, the scientists conclude that subsidizing broccoli and yogurt- as appealing as that idea might be to some- may be unlikely to bring about the massive weight loss the nation now requires.
February 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced a constitutional amendment to reverse a recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance that has the effect of allowing virtually unlimited corporate spending in elections. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) joined Dodd as an original cosponsor of the constitutional amendment.
“I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment, and I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of the American people. But I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,” said Dodd.
“Ultimately, we must cut through the underbrush and go directly to the heart of the problem, and that is why I am proposing this constitutional amendment: because constitutional questions need constitutional answers. I believe it is the best way to save our democratic system of government from the continued corrosion of special interest influence,” Dodd continued.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to encourage the corrosive effects special interest money is having on the election process fundamentally contradicts the American ideal that campaigns should be about the best ideas and not the biggest bank accounts,” said Udall. “We have long needed substantive campaign finance reform and I am proud to join Senator Dodd in this effort to amend our Constitution and help put our elections back in the hands of average Americans.”
Last month, the Supreme Court concluded in a highly controversial 5-4 ruling that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising.
The constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level. It would also provide for implementation and enforcement of the amendment through legislation.
In addition to the amendment, Dodd and Udall plan to support interim legislative efforts to blunt the Supreme Court’s ruling, including increased disclosure requirements on corporate campaign spending and other efforts to further limit the influence of foreign corporations in the democratic process.
February 24, 2010 at 10:25 am by Jonathan Kantrowitz
Guest post by Jon Green, Executive Director, CT Working Families
Today is the day that we’re kicking off our paid sick days campaign with a big press conference at the state capitol. Our star witness: a school bus driver who has no paid sick days and actually had to go to work with the swine flu because she could not afford to stay home and lose a week’s pay.
But today is also the big annual lobby day for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. (Silly me, I thought every day was business lobby day!) They’re the main opponents of paid sick days legislation — as well as healthcare reform, minimum wage increases, workplace safety regulations, and more. And right now, paid sick days is their top priority to kill.
So the building is crawling with business owners and corporate lobbyists spreading half-truths about the paid sick days bill. It’s amazing how easy it is for business owners to take the day off to come to the capitol to lobby against a bill that would allow their employees to take a day off for something really important – they’re health! The short of it is, I need some back up.
After the outbreak of swine flu last fall, the need for paid sick days should be clearer than ever. It’s crazy to make the people who cook and prepare our food, drive our kids to school or take care of the sick and elderly go to work when they’re sick.
On Monday, I sent out an email asking people to share their individual reasons why they support paid sick days. In a flash we had over 100 responses — some of them very moving. I wanted to share with you a few of the responses to the question “Why Paid Sick Days?”
“Because I don’t want the patients I work with to be sick too.”
“The medicine I take reduces the ability of my immune system to fight infection. I sure wish people who were contagious would stay home and get better.”
“Because chemotherapy is tougher than anything you can imagine.”
“Because I do not want to have to choose between staying home and caring for my sick five year old and going to work.”
The stories are powerful. In fact, we’ve assembled them into a booklet we’re going to be handing out to legislators. But that won’t stop business lobbyists from attacking this common sense policy with misinformation. The truth is that most business provide sick days because they recognize that making employees come to work sick doesn’t really save them any money.
February 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
Today the Connecticut Congressional delegation met with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to ask why our state – with some of the most crowded highways in the country – did not receive any of the $1.5 billion in federal transportation funds announced last week.
Secretary LaHood told the Connecticut delegation he shared their disappointment that the state did not receive funding even though good proposals were submitted.
As DOT decides which states will receive $600 million in TIGER grants this fall, LaHood promised the delegation that Department of Transportation officials will meet with ConnDOT and all of the Connecticut TIGER grant applicants to help them submit the most competitive applications possible.
“The Connecticut delegation is clearly united in their frustration and has done a good job of explaining why Connecticut needs funding,” said Secretary LaHood. “I appreciate their bringing me their concerns. My department will meet with each and every Connecticut applicant to ensure that they are fully prepared to compete later this year.”
Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), along with Representatives Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), John Larson (CT-1), Joe Courtney (CT-2), Chris Murphy (CT-5), and Jim Himes (CT-4) also reiterated their strong support for the development of the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line and urged the Secretary LaHood to consider it for funding under the $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants DOT will award this year.
“As we told the Secretary, the fact that our state was passed over is extremely disappointing, and we won’t rest until Connecticut gets the resources it needs,” said Senator Dodd. “He assured us that his department will meet with our applicants as they apply for more funding in the coming months, and I’m going to stay in close touch with him, my colleagues, ConnDOT, and other Connecticut applicants to ensure these commitments are met.”
“I’m pleased that Secretary LaHood and the Department of Transportation have recognized that there were a number of worthy Connecticut projects that would create new jobs,” said Senator Lieberman. “It’s important that all Connecticut applicants get the opportunity to make their case for future funds, and I’m committed to working with the rest of the delegation to ensure that our state’s roads and railroad infrastructure are getting the resources they need.”
“While I remain disappointed that Connecticut was overlooked in the recent transportation project funding disbursement, I will work hard and advocate for our state’s many worthy projects in getting them the support they deserve in the next round of funding,” said Congresswoman DeLauro. “I look forward to working with Secretary LaHood and my colleagues to improve our state’s infrastructure and to help alleviate the sky-high unemployment rates in the local construction industry.”
Congressman John B. Larson, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus said, “I am confident after our meeting with Secretary LaHood that with renewed efforts and the assistance for Connecticut’s applicants that the Secretary has committed to, that the requirements for our critical transportation projects will be met.”
“I appreciate Secretary LaHood’s candor today, and his regret that Connecticut did not receive TIGER funding in the first round. I look forward to working with the DOT, the State of Connecticut, and my colleagues in the Congressional Delegation to advocate for worthwhile projects in the upcoming second round of the program,” said Rep. Courtney.
“I’m glad the U.S. DOT now sees what we already knew – Connecticut has a laundry list of worthy transportation projects that deserve federal dollars,” said Rep. Murphy. “Connecticut has done very well in receiving stimulus funds to help put our people back to work, but this delegation isn’t going to let any potential funding pass us by. I’m glad to have the Secretary’s commitment to work with Connecticut in this next round of TIGER applications.”
“I was very direct with Secretary LaHood that, given Connecticut’s contribution to the national economy and the transportation challenges we face, the TIGER grant awards were completely unacceptable to us,” said Rep. Himes. “The Secretary committed to working together as the TIGER process moves forward to ensure Fairfield County gets the investment we deserve.”
February 23, 2010 at 3:57 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
Kevin Lembo, a Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, and all other candidates hoping to access public financing for their campaigns, are anxiously awaiting a solution to the problems that got the original CEP program declared unconstitutional.
Can this program, which was negotiated by the Republican governor and Democratic legislature after a corruption scandal forced the resignation of Gov. John G. Rowland, be saved?
Rell and Democratic and Republican legislative leaders agreed Monday to create a special committee to devise a response to a court’s finding six months ago that the program is unconstitutional.
“I will not be running for Governor,” Shays told Capitol Report. ” I would love to be part of the debate. I believe I would win. And I would dearly love to serve and help get our State out of the huge mess it is in. But Betsi and I simply can’t make it work financially. After quitting my job to run for Governor and serving four years in office we would be nearly bankrupt, the very problem I would be helping to get the State out of.”
“Our state”? He doesn’t even live here any more.
Does the same reasoning apply to a run for Congress? One would think so.
Now it’s health information and training funds that won‘t be coming to Connecticut.
New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont were able to secure $138.5 million out of $1 billion in federal stimulus funds for health information technology and training entry level health care workers.
Connecticut received nothing during the first round of awards, which went to 40 other states…
It’s incredible that the Rell administration can fumble the ball time after time and still believe that it’s in the game. Time for a chance – and a Democratic governor!
Update:
NED LAMONT STATEMENT ON CONNECTICUT LOSING OUT ON MORE FEDERAL FUNDING:
“Today, we learned that Connecticut has once again lost out on significant federal funding that would grow jobs in our state. Last week, it was hundreds of millions in lost potential federal transportation dollars. Today, we learned that we missed out on millions more in federal stimulus funding for training entry level health care workers and modernizing health information technology.”
“Forty other states were able to win funding in this latest round, while once again Connecticut missed out. This is absolutely unacceptable. As I have been saying for months, we can no longer afford to allow our jobs and infrastructure funding to go to other states simply because they are more aggressive than we are. As Governor, I will lead the fight for every last job and every last federal dollar to help get our economy back on track.”
