CRUSADE
OF INITIATIVES STRETCH LIMITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
What will he
outlaw next?
Updated Tuesday March 12, 2013:
A judge struck down New York’s limits on large sugary drinks on Monday, one day before they were to take effect, in a significant blow to one of the most ambitious and divisive initiatives of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s tenure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?hp&_r=0
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bloomberg-soda-ban-national-article-1.1285235
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bloomberg-supersized-ego-soda-ban-article-1.1285724
(Monday March 11, 2013.The
Bronx, NY) When Michael Bloomberg took the oath of office and became mayor of
the largest City in America, he inherited a City in good shape according to all
the quantifiable metrics used to assess the state of the City. Crime was already showing steep declines in
all major categories, the local economy was running smoothly thanks to an
expanding tax base, record high tourism,
and a climate favorable to businesses that had left in bleaker times
returning to New York City. Bloomberg
has presided over a solid decade of improved “quality of life” and in his low
keyed manner made New York City government a model to be emulated.
As a self-made billionaire he
built a successful business enterprise and created a brand that carries his
name. He brought his business acumen and
superior managerial skills to City Hall and has quietly (most of the time) kept
the vast, diverse, often disparate facets of the City governmental apparatus
functioning more effectively and efficiently than it has in generations. Sure, his tenure has not been without its
missteps and mistakes, labor confrontations and natural disasters but, for the
most part, he has navigated the challenges well and the City shows the hallmark
signs of ascendancy that have made it the safest large city in America as well
as the number one tourist destination on the planet.
Bloomberg was his predecessor’s
hand-picked heir apparent and on that resounding endorsement by Rudy Giuliani
who, at the time was riding a tidal wave of popularity earned by his public
performance in the wake of September 11, 2001, New Yorkers elected another
Republican. Shortly after his electoral
victory Bloomberg changed his political affiliation to “Independent” which was
a more accurate labeling for his populist, libertarian ideology. If anything most New Yorkers seemed to view
the mild mannered Mayor more as a steward, an executive custodian whose job was
to build on the accomplishments achieved by Rudy Giuliani and his years of
often combative heavy lifting.
As it has turned out Bloomberg
found the City in such good shape that he apparently became restless. As his City hummed along like a fairly
well-oiled machine, His Honor cast his gaze far and wide for new challenges,
new issues to which he could apply his “better” judgment towards really
improving the lives of his constituents.
As he looked around his City from the lofty perch of his Wall Streeteseque,
cubicled “work space” in City Hall what he glimpsed was disturbing. He saw citizens in need of a parent, of a
monitor who should regulate the public’s behavior via unprecedented local
ordinances, statutes, and laws. Yes, our
Mayor was going to do for us what we could not do for ourselves; us being the
reckless, undisciplined, ignorant, bad-habit ridden louts we are.
In a perverse, almost comic
version of “Father knows best”, Big Mike was going to lead us all to healthier,
more wholesome, orderly lives. Indeed,
he would help us all live better and longer lives by curtailing our smoking,
snacking, soft drink consumption, and now, in his latest spasm of paternal
largesse, he wants to preserve our hearing.
He thinks that ear buds and headphones, the lifelines of so many of our
plugged in digital existence, are causing our collective auditory abilities to
be destroyed. What? What’s that you say, Mike? Yes it is true; our Big Daddy of a Mayor has
identified our personal decibel exposure as a matter to be regulated.
That our Uncle Mickey is well
intended is not in doubt; he certainly must feel that he needs to protect us
from the evils of poor nutrition, nicotine, sugar and now noise. Conversely he also must believe that we are
incapable of regulating ourselves when it comes to our vices, habits and
tastes. His crusades have raised
profound questions about the role and reach of government, in our case,
Municipal government. This is a debate
that has been raging seemingly forever on the national level. Big Government versus Small Government: the
metaphorical divide between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and
Conservatives, the “Left” and the “Right”.
Good intentions aside the
question Bloomberg’s initiatives raise speak to the fundamentals of our
Republic. What is the “role” of a
governing body in America? Where are the
lines drawn between regulation and freedom?
By what authority can a government regulate personal behavior and, more
importantly, should it be able to do so at all?
These are far from rhetorical questions or fodder for think tank debate;
they are at the very core of so many of the seemingly intractable issues that
plaque our government on the federal, state and local levels.
FOR THE GREATER GOOD ?
While Bloomy’s “nanny state”
approach to governing ranges from laughable to insulting his underlying
premises deserve attention if not hold some degree of merit. His anti-smoking, anti-trans fats, anti-
large sized sugary soft drinks, and now anti-ear bud measures all reside under
the rubric of public health. Since the costs associated with treating New
Yorker’s with lung cancer, obesity-related chronic conditions such as
hypertension and atherosclerosis (high blood pressure & coronary artery
disease), type I & II diabetes, and a host of other ailments are so great
and the number of un- and under- insured New Yorker’s is at an all-time high,
an argument can be made that our Mayor has a “right”, or at least some legal
claim to control the health care costs incurred by The City from treating for
those citizens who suffer from such conditions.
Whether or not such initiatives
are Constitutional is another matter.
If America was not collectively
engulfed in a health insurance crisis, the Mayor’s position would be moot. The citizens who acquired health problems
from what are arguably called “poor personal health choices” would have access
to care as would all Americans. This is
not a rallying cry for “socialized medicine” but rather a simple statement of
fact. The cost of health care and health
care insurance in America is so high that, income and socioeconomic factors
dictate the quality of care an individual receives. This should be unacceptable
to all of us but it seems not to be.
So, in the absence of equality
in the realm of access to medical care including preventative and regular
surveillance screening to diagnose problems at the earliest possible point of
intervention which alone would reduce long-term overall costs, Bloomberg has
stepped into the breach.
DRINK UP
As of one minute after midnight
tonight Bloomberg’s ban on large size sugary drinks goes into effect. For all the hype it has generated, all the
late night shows jokes, and some modest efforts at organized protest, it will
become “law” though how it can and will be enforced remains to be seen. This ban primarily aimed at soft drinks but
also affecting coffee shops such as Starbucks, might prove to be more symbolic
than substantive. Merely regulating the size of individual beverages may curb
consumption, it is doubtful it will have a broader impact of New Yorkers
behavior. If anything it may negatively
affect those among us occupying the lower socioeconomic strata, those most
likely to have no health care coverage, limited incomes, and less availability
to alternative beverages. In some of the
poorest neighborhoods in our City large chain grocery stores are few and far
between. The residents in these
neighborhoods rely on small mom and pop markets, green grocers and bodegas for
all their food shopping needs. These
retailers tend to have a very limited inventory.
It is one matter when it comes
to controlling the size of soft drinks in movie theaters and other public
venues. It is quite another matter to further limit an already limited array of
choices in the smaller grocery retailers.
Bloomberg may be sincere in his altruistic approach to public health but
he seems to be disconnected from the reality of the poor. His initiative to provide better, more
nutritionally sound school lunches should be applauded since it is well within
his authority to do so. However his
altruism may become an onerous challenge for parents who shop locally in their
neighborhoods and have to stretch their grocery budgets just to provide the
essentials.
Time may tell what impact the “sugary
drink ban” will have on New Yorkers. But
one thing is certain; we must separate good intentions from intrusive
governmental intervention in our personal lives in all respects from birth
control to what we eat and drink. Each time
the reach of government extends further and further into our personal lives,
our homes, and the health care or dietary decisions we make our rights become
just that much more eroded. Perhaps you
can tax tobacco products enough to discourage smoking and perhaps prompt some
to abandon the habit. But it is on shaky
ground our Mayor stands when he assumes the role of self-appointed beneficent leader
who knows better than we do how to conduct our own lives.
TAGS: MICHAEL
BLOOMBERG, SUGARY DRINK BAN, NYC PUBLIC HEALTH, MAYOR BLOOMBERGS HEALTH
INITIATIVES, NYC SMOKING LAWS, NYC TRANS FAT BAN, NYC SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, BIG
GOVERNMENT VERSUS SMALL GOVERNMENT, ROLE OF GOVERNMENT THE “NANNY STATE”
LINKS:
Copyright The Brooding Cynyx 2013 © All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment