We need to reorient our cultural attitude about obesity so it is not an excuse to argue the respective merits of personal responsibility and public policy. Rather, if we are to fix it at its origins, we need to acknowledge that people who are empowered are most capable, and most inclined, to exercise responsibility.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released his fiscal year 2015 budget proposal last week, but the rhetoric in the document and out of the Committee often seem at odds with the budget choices that are being made.
The State Department wants $400,000 to purchase a fiberglass sculpture of a camel looking at a needle for its new embassy in Pakistan. They've already...
Walmart benefits from food stamps in multiple ways, as taxpayers both underwrite the company's food sales and also subsidize its payroll costs.
Instead of discussing the horror of someone buying soda pop or a steak with SNAP (food stamps), it would be great to turn the conversation to the things that can't be purchased and think for a minute how we could find a workaround.
These disproportionate cuts -- which likely account for at least $3.3 trillion of the budget's $4.8 trillion in non-defense cuts over the next decade -- contrast sharply with the budget's rhetoric about helping the poor and promoting opportunity.
You don't know me. You have no clue that my family has gone through the wringer. You have no clue that we have faced unbelievable hardship. You know none of this but you didn't let that stop you from being compassionate and generous to someone you have never met.
Budgets are about priorities. Despite Chairman Ryan's rhetoric on fighting poverty and boosting opportunity, no fair-minded observer can claim that his proposals actually reflect those priorities -- or sugarcoat their harsh impact on tens of millions of low- and moderate-income Americans.
Millennials have had enough of the decisions made by baby boomers that have left them scrambling to find jobs that match their hard-earned credentials -- and they've had enough of self-serving politicians.
Basic budget arithmetic suggests that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's coming budget will be at least as extreme as his budget last year, and likely more so.
The Ryan report grimly concludes that federal programs are "failing to address" poverty. Poverty certainly remains too high. But the report seems determined not to recognize the long-term successes of existing programs even when the evidence is in plain sight.
A single number can change the public debate on an issue that seems stalled. The number is $4.6 billion, and it represents how much money taxpayers will save annually if the federal minimum wage is raised to $10.10 per hour.
Even with the crucial anti-poverty programs we have in place, these are new and emerging faces of poverty -- the very opposite of the picture of poverty Ryan paints.
Knowing that many active-duty service personnel and veterans face financial hardships, there is much we can -- and should -- do to ease that burden.
Since there is currently a rather large amount of poverty around that ideally would be rapidly alleviated, you could legitimately expect that the proposals that each side brought to the table might significantly erode the poverty under review. Sadly, however, neither set of proposals do.
While news outlets don't just invent numbers on the budget, it would not be much of a change for the worse if they did. The news stories that we saw following the release of President Obama's budget followed the same practice we have seen in budget stories for decades. They threw very large numbers at readers that no one understands.