Mayor Bloomberg of New York City should be commended for working towards a healthier city.  Unfortunately, there are many who would criticize Mayor Bloomberg for seeking to achieve that goal the wrong way. In fact, most New Yorkers think the so-called “soda ban”— which would prohibit the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces by most food establishments — is a bad idea.

New Yorkers are known around the world for their staunch independence and mandating the amount and size of a person’s soda smacks of over-reaching in a major way just like the mayor’s other folly— trans-fats.  Have you tasted a French fry in New York lately? 

New York, like our very own Baltimore, should find ways to encourage its citizens to make healthier food choices and work to address the outrageous rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes — especially among communities of color.  However the soda ban is the wrong move for several reasons:

1. The ban, if implemented, will yield an adverse economic impact for small businesses and may result in job losses; and
2. The ban would harm producers that ship soda-syrup and cups across state lines into New York, possibly violating the federal commerce clause; and
3. The ban infringes on the civil liberties (choice) of New Yorkers, and may be overturned.

Quite frankly, the courts were right in 2011 to keep the mayor and city support agencies from barring the city’s food stamp users from buying soda and other high-sugar drinks. The courts are right again for deciding that this ban may be overreaching.

For a ban meant to address health in low-income communities, it was particularly concerning that it was brought forth during a time when the city was considering cuts to minority health programs.  And scratching the surface of the proposal, it appears the ban does not consider the complexity of how and why people acquire food and drink, and instead, applies a simplified solution to a layered problem.

For instance, the ban would exempt drinks over 16 ounces that contained over 50 percent milk. This would include drinks like a 24 fl. oz. serving of a certain corporation’s popular blended crème caffeinated beverage, a drink that is roughly 470 calories — equivalent to the amount of calories in a medium 10-ounce steak. Yet it would ban a single-serving of soda, juice, enhanced water beverage, tea, coffee or sports drink of equivalent size if purchased from certain establishments.

It’s also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. The average New Yorker goes to the movie theater only four times a year, and attends sports venues even less regularly. Daily trips to the neighborhood corner store are much more common occurrences. Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the city’s department of health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling fewer than 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban. This effectively means that two stores on the same block might very well be held to different standards. In fact, some major chain stores would be exempted by this same standard.

This kind of arbitrary standard is what leads us to believe that the proposal would not only be ineffective, but also harmful to small local businesses, specifically those servicing low-income communities.

Now that the courts have weighed in on Bloomberg’s ban, the mayor should turn his focus to the real issue at hand, access to low-cost, quality healthy food across his city. We need to do even more to bring comprehensive food-access programs to local communities.

If the administration is truly interested in getting New Yorkers outdoors, there should be priority put on funding to rehabilitate outdoor parks and playgrounds, as well as indoor recreational spaces to encourage New Yorkers to exercise.

A ban is easy; establishing real solutions in the long term is much more difficult. And frankly, we believe moving towards any of these goals would have a greater impact on public health than a beverage ban that might hurt small businesses, could be arbitrarily applied, and that may very well be illegal. 

On Wednesday, Feb. 27., President Barack Obama was at the Capitol, joining leaders of Congress to dedicate a statue in honor of the "Mother of the Civil Rights Movement," Alabama's Rosa Parks. About the same time, across the street at the Supreme Court, an Alabama lawyer was arguing that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act -- the consequence and legacy of the Civil Rights Movement -- was unnecessary and unconstitutional.The irony lies not only in the timing or juxtaposition, but the institutions.

On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat when a white bus driver ordered her to move. Twelve years earlier, the same driver had grabbed her coat sleeve and pushed her off his bus for trying to enter through the front rather than the back door. This time he said, "Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested." She replied, "You may do that." Her arrest led to a 381-day boycott of Montgomery buses by the black community.

The boycott propelled the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to prominence as a civil rights leader. And the arrest of Parks and the boycott she inspired led to a civil law suit, Browder v. Gayle, in which the Supreme Court declared the Alabamaand Montgomery laws requiring segregated buses unconstitutional.

It took Congress 10 years to catch up to the Supreme Court, when it passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965.Although Alabama's at it again with the new challenge, this time it seems the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to roll back the clock. Frank C. Ellis Jr., the attorney for plaintiff Shelby County, argues that Congress exceeded its authority in 2006 when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years.

Section 5 is the heart of the VRA. Areas of the country with a history of voter suppression and intimidation -- determined decades ago by a formula devised by Congress -- must submit any changes in their election laws to the Department of Justice for clearance. The jurisdictions covered include six Southern states, Alaska and parts of other states, including California, Florida, New Hampshire and sections of New York City.

Congress did extensive research before reauthorizing the act in 2006, and recent studies prove Section 5 works well in targeting places where discriminatory voter practices exist. This is evidenced by successful lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the VRA, which bars "voting qualification" that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, "under any formula that Congress could devise," Alabama would still be a targeted state.

But neither facts, history or legal precedent deterred Justice Antonin Scalia from deciding he alone would be better qualified to do Congress' job.

He said last week that Section 5 amounted to a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" that "will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. ... It's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress ... even the Virginia senators ... are going to lose votes if they do not re-enact."

So, protecting the right to vote -- not just of blacks, by the way, but of Native Americans in Alaska, Hispanics in California, and even French-speaking Americans in New Hampshire -- is a "racial entitlement." And legislative questions can't be left to Congress. And -- horrors! -- a senator's vote might be influenced by how the citizens he represents will respond.

After all, that democracy thing  might interfere with Scalia's judicial fiats. Four years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, with respect to Section 5, that "things have changed in the South."

Really?

Tell that to the citizens of the five Florida counties covered by Section 5 of  the Voting Rights Act. This year, Florida tried to cut early voting hours in those counties. A panel of federal judges refused to allow it, thanks to Section 5.

(Guess who would have been disenfranchised  if the cutback had gone through?)

A panel of federal judges in Texas also knows that times have not changed. That's why they rejected, again under Section 5, a new photo ID law that would have imposed "strict, unforgiving burdens" on poor and minority voters. Under that proposal, by the way, you could vote with a gun license but not a student or veteran's ID.

Another justice, last week, raised the specter of "state sovereignty." A little history, courtesy of President Abraham Lincoln, in remarks to Congress given on July 4, 1861: "...no one of our states, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union..." (As did Hawaii.) Much as Scalia and his cohorts would like to legislate -- or dictate -- from the bench, the Supreme Court can only decide if a law is constitutional. And as a Harvard Law Review essay argues, Congress authorized preclearance -- Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. And that makes it constitutional.

Last week President Obama went to the Capitol to deliver the annual State of the Union address. Among all of the talk of guns, a minimum wage increase and other issues he is bound to get push back on, he did finally talk about the budget. He said all the right things.

The president drew a link between responsible fiscal policy and the important issues of jobs, the middle class and economic growth. He emphasized the need for fiscal responsibility.

He pointed out that while some savings have been accomplished, there is still much to be done. His objective of saving another $1.5 trillion falls well short of what is needed to put the debt on a sustainable path. He has to think bigger.

This week some analysts announced that a minimum of $2.4 trillion in additional savings is needed to achieve that basic goal.

He acknowledged that compromise will have to drive negotiations and that no one will see a deal come together exactly as they would choose. But when it comes to specifics, the president continues to take the easy way out. He alone has the platform to help those in the country who are lost on the reasons that more headway cannot be made on the country’s present economic situation. However, he seems to prefer to punt every time.

It's relatively easy to talk about things like scaling back tax loopholes for corporations and the well off, asking the rich to pay more as part of Medicare, and providing fewer subsidies to drug companies. However, those items have already been on the table. What is next?

Instead of just replacing or retooling the blunt sequester, we do need to find savings from defense. We also need to put Social Security on a path toward solvency and the sooner we do it the better. We should protect those who depend on the program, and running from the financial imbalances it faces does just the opposite.

Tax reform also will require tackling popular, yet expensive and inefficient, tax breaks— from the health care exclusion to the home mortgage deduction— if we truly want to overhaul our outdated and anti-growth tax code. Reforming the tax breaks for the rich and well-connected is a must, but that is not enough to really fix a tax code that hemorrhages more than $1 trillion in forgone revenues a year.

Language around “making the rich pay, their fair share” doesn’t really get us any closer to solving this problem. Truthfully, it does more to divide us along socio-economic and class distinction than moving us to a solution.

The bottom line is deficit reduction is difficult and the president knows that. He should start an honest dialogue with the American public about what it will take to help move the issue forward. He was re-elected by a majority of voters to finish the job he started. We are still waiting.

The emphasis he put on the issue last week was encouraging, but the proof will be in how he leads, going forward. In recent fiscal negotiations, we have been locked in a game of you go first, no you go first between the two parties when it comes to how they would proceed specific on entitlement programs and tax reform. The risk is that both will find it too politically convenient to hide behind the easy pieces of taxing the rich and discretionary spending caps. It can’t be an either/or scenario. Both have been enacted, and neither of which are sufficient to fix the problem.

Only the president can start this honest dialogue. If he steps forward and starts putting specifics on the table about some of the hard choices that must be made, and if he uses his platform to explain to the country why it is so important not to duck from these issues as we work to get the economy back on track, his SOTU address will have been a great start to a serious effort. Otherwise, it will be just a lot of empty words and we have had enough of those. 

President Obama's victory in the 2012 election left Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and not much else. The GOP appears to be in chaos and free fall, but rest assured, they will get it together. They have no choice.

The current situation within the party has left the president with two strategic choices: to reach out to the opposition now because they may see some compromise with him as a way to stabilize themselves, or he could simply use the lever of public opinion to move House Republicans in his direction, bypassing their leadership altogether.

The president's 2013 State of the Union address— his single best opportunity to set the agenda for his second term— offers further evidence that he has chosen to use the bully pulpit and his current public support to drive the next four years.

In a wide-ranging speech focused on strengthening the middle class, Obama gave little ground to his adversaries. While he did not back away from the social policy initiatives— on immigration, gun safety and climate change— that took center-stage in his second inaugural address, he clearly shifted his emphasis to the economy and jobs, which recent surveys are placed at the top of the public's concerns.

He advanced a vision of an activist government that would raise wages and incomes, boost education and skills, and improve the climate for job creation.

While insisting that, "Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase the deficit by a single dime," he did not spell out how much these initiatives would add to federal spending or how the cost would be offset. He proposed no significant cuts in existing programs. And he ducked the structural problems that dominate the long-term fiscal horizon.

On social policy, Obama renewed his call for comprehensive immigration reform, including an earned path to citizenship for immigrants now residing in the United States illegally, and for gun legislation that bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as well as closing loopholes in background checks. Rather than proposing new legislation to slow climate change, he focused on executive actions his administration would take in the event of congressional inaction.

Concerning the economy, Obama's emphasis on restoring manufacturing jobs was notable. Among other initiatives, he proposed reforms that would lower the corporate tax rate and make the research and development tax credit permanent while providing preferential treatment for manufacturers and others who invest in the U.S. economy.

Obama proposed to attack the problem of low wages and stagnant household earnings on two fronts. In education and training, he emphasized the crucial role of community colleges in providing marketable skills and he endorsed a new partnership between the federal government and the states to provide access to high-quality preschool for every child, a goal that many education experts endorse. However, the president was not content to rely on these long-term strategies for boosting wages. He also proposed an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour.

On the public's other major priority— reducing the federal budget deficit— Obama broke little new ground. In the face of looming legislative deadlines--the sequester at the end of February, the expiration of the continuing resolution at the end of March, and another encounter with the debt ceiling in late spring, the president urged agreements that would avert these events but offered nothing beyond what he had already put on the table.

The interesting thing about the State of the Union is that for a president who often talks about working across the aisle, it extended few olive branches to the Republicans. Instead, he will take his case to the country to build support for his programs and ratchet up pressure on the opposition party to go along.

This represents a high-stakes gamble that could lead to an entrenched Republican Party and a president governing over gridlock.