Newest piece at National Review Online: Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

Newest piece at National Review Online: Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

Bloomberg Health op-ed Regulation

My newest piece starts this way:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban sugary soft drinks larger than 16 ounces. He believes that by this measure he can reduce obesity. But plenty of evidence indicates that he will fail. The ban will inconvenience people and waste their time, but it will not make them thinner.  
Bloomberg didn’t originate this type of idea. Public schools, which hold their students captive for much of their day, have tried a similar approach to making students lose weight. And some have gone further than Bloomberg’s limit on cup size and have banned such drinks completely. But even complete bans haven’t worked. Students simply drink more sugary drinks after school. According to an article in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior analyzing data for Maine, “keeping such drinks out of teenagers’ reach during school hours may not be enough.” . . .

Michelle Obama supports Bloomberg's ban. 

she said, "We applaud anyone who's stepping up to think about what changes work in their communities. New York is one example." . . .

Gag on the 2nd Amendment in New York City's Gun Suit?

Gag on the 2nd Amendment in New York City's Gun Suit?

Bloomberg GunControl

The New York Sun reports:

Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity. “Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has a problem with both the First and the Second amendments,” Lawrence Keane, the general counsel of a firearms industry association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said.

Brought to you by Campaign Finance Regulations: Bloomberg's Presidential Run

Brought to you by Campaign Finance Regulations: Bloomberg's Presidential Run

2008PresidentialRace Bloomberg CampaignFinanceRegulation

My book Freedomnomics goes through the impact of campaign finance regulations, but one of the bigger impacts is how it has worked to give wealthy candidates an advantage. I won't go through all the arguments here, but one simple point is that if Bloomberg spends $500 million or $1 billion as has been discussed, donation limits mean that there is no way that even the combined Democratic and Republican expenditures can match that.

Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of launching an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.

On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.

Prediction on Bloomberg

Prediction on Bloomberg

2008PresidentialRace Bloomberg FredThompson

I think that Bloomberg's entry into the race will greatly damage Republicans. It is true that Bloomberg is liberal and would surely be more likely to draw votes from the Democratic presidential candidate, but I think that view is too narrow. Bloomberg has recently indicated that he thinks that the country is going in the wrong direction and that things are getting worse. Personally, I don't see how someone who has actually looked at the economic numbers can claim that, but what I think all this means is that Bloomberg will be spending say $500 million on television ads saying how bad things are. Bloomberg might not get many votes (the ideal state for Democrats), but he may be able to depress voters in enough key states to push down the Republican vote. There is no way that the Republicans can raise enough money to compete with this message beging put out by Bloomberg, let alone with what Bloomberg and the Dems will be putting out together. I hope that I am wrong. Overall, however, I think that this means that a higher premium than usual is going to be placed on a candidate who can effectively communicate his positions and someone who comes across as very positive. This probably pushes me to support Fred Thompson even more strongly than I alread do.