Other Voices

“After three years in which the Democratic majority in the Senate failed to produce a budget, it was refreshing to have them offer up any budget at all.

But both their proposal, proffered by Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, and the plan advanced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), turn a blind eye to reality in ways that render them dead on arrival at a time America needs action, not partisan wish lists.

Ryan's budget assumes the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the federal healthcare takeover rammed through by Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress. Since most agree that the law is here to stay, following the Supreme Court's blessing and President Barack Obama's re-election last year, that assumption is a waste of time. … Murray's budget shows the equivalent amount of partisan pie-in-the-sky thinking as Ryan's for those on the other side of the aisle. It includes nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenue, $100 billion in infrastructure-project stimulus—and no serious entitlement reform.”

—Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch

“Mayor Michael Bloomberg's efforts to regulate the portion size of sugar-sweetened drinks in New York is silly, unenforceable and possibly unconstitutional, but a new study further supports the reasoning behind his anti-soda campaign.

Researchers from the World Health Organization say sugary beverages killed 184,000 people in 2010, including 25,000 in the U.S., because overconsumption of those drinks led to diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

Vulnerable and price-sensitive groups such as youth and low-income people might respond to a higher per-drink tax and the educational programs it could fund. A similar approach has worked with tobacco products. A more popular solution might be to eliminate sugary drinks from food-stamp eligibility. If governments, i.e., taxpayers, are ultimately responsible for the healthcare needs of the populace, they should be permitted to regulate risk factors.”

—Bakersfield Californian