Nanny of the Month (August 2012): Stimulus Money Used to Support Soda Taxes
Our nation's nannies have turned up the heat this summer.
August's slate of control freaks includes the silver state statists who might fine you 2,000 bucks for the crime of teaching someone how to apply makeup, and the Phoenix code enforcer who busted a woman for handing out free water in 112-degree heat (!) because she didn't have a license.
Yet neither could managed to muster the the meddling of this month's top pick. Using federal taxpayers' dough (we're talking stimulus and Obamacare cash) to implement local-level soda taxes and other nanny state laws certainly violates good taste, but the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General thinks it might also violate federal anti-lobbying provisions.
Presenting Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month for August 2012: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius!
About 75 seconds.
"Nanny of the Month" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Opening animation by Meredith Bragg. Special thanks to Jeff Stier.
Go here to watch previous Nanny of the Month episodes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Here's the problem with the Ryan plan:
If you exempt anyone under 55 from having their benefits cut, then you are saying there will be no benefit cuts whatsoever for 10 years, and then any cuts will be phased in very gradually.
That means any and all cuts will come entirely by reducing payments to providers. Medicare is, at best, a breakeven payor for hospitals. For physicians, it varies, but it is by no means a big profit center for most physicians.
Exempting patients from any responsibility for reducing Medicare spending will result in either (a) no cuts of any size or (b) cuts that will affect access and quality of care.
So, keep whooping for Ron Paul, bellyaching about Mormonism and then don't vote to help ensure another four years of an Obama not restrained by considerations of another election.
Yeah, I know, they're all the same so we should Make A Statement.
*barf*
We were worried for a bit, but it looks like you're finally catching on.
Who watches the watchmen?
Presenting Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month for August 2012: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius!