The Indian subcontinent’s central location between China and Japan in the East and the Arabian Peninsula in the West can also help the United States to manipulate a rapidly changing strategic map of the world. Americans since our founding have thought of Europe as our central partner and the Mediterranean as the epicenter of global politics. While Europe is still vital to the United States, it is Asia that will likely dominate the future. The strategist Robert Kaplan predicts the Indian Ocean will replace the Mediterranean as the central arena of global energy flows, container traffic, and politics in this century.
Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress
Applying the lessons of history, civility, and strategy to today's critical challenges.
-
”The single most significant thing we can do is have the best educated population in the world. It literally is the thing, the key that leads to everything else from our economic security to our physical security.
Vice President Joe Biden • Speaking at Florida State University about America’s education. Biden said in his speech that he wants to make education in America more affordable, citing his own experience with higher education, in which his father was initially denied for a loan. Biden ended up going anyway, eventually getting a bachelor’s degree from the University of Delaware, a law degree from Syracuse and a spot in the White House. Biden says the Obama administration won’t waver from its goal of providing better education, while at the same time making it more affordable for more parts of society. Biden’s a bit up against it, though: His visit to Florida comes as the state legislature plans to vote on statewide tuition hikes. source (via • follow)
-
India’s strategic importance to the US
by CSPC Trustee and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government professor Nicholas Burns
WE HAVE grown accustomed to think of foreign policy as a series of unending crises in this complex time. And there are plenty of problems for Americans to confront overseas, from Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions to our decade-long war in Afghanistan. But success in foreign policy is also about taking advantage of opportunities. If coping with a more powerful China will be the great challenge for the United States in the next half century, India may be the great opportunity.
India is of immense strategic importance to the United States. It can help in limiting possible future Chinese expansion as we seek to maintain a preponderance of military power by the democratic countries of Asia - one of the most important American global objectives. India has helped the United States to support the embattled Karzai government in Afghanistan. Its booming high-tech economy is a source of growing trade and investment for American companies. It has one of the world’s most admired leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all worked to build this partnership in rare bipartisan fashion.
India, however, can also be a frustrating partner. Its diplomats have dueled with the United States unproductively on global trade talks and on other issues at the United Nations. It has stalled in implementing the nuclear deal with the United States and disappointed expectations it would open its economy further to foreign investment. It has not supported tough US and European sanctions against Iran and criticized NATO’s successful intervention in Libya last spring. Working with India is not easy, and some in Washington are impatient that it has, in some ways, failed to meet its obvious potential to lead globally. Our problem may not be an India that is too strong but one that is too weak and uncertain.
But it would be a mistake to give up on India. India’s leaders acknowledge that they will need closer strategic ties with the United States to balance their often troublesome neighbors - Pakistan and, increasingly, China. They prize the close military ties with the United States and appreciate the political bond between our democracies. We will have to get used to the fact that our partnership will likely advance by fits and starts as we gradually learn to work together, not as allies, but as equals in a transformed world where the United States is still the single strongest country but joined at the global leadership table by newcomers India, China, and Brazil.
That is why Obama’s recent pivot to Asia is the most important strategic advance of his presidency. Given China’s challenge to America’s 60-year domination of the Asia-Pacific region, Obama was smart to announce a reinvigoration of US alliances with Japan and South Korea and the stationing of US Marines in northern Australia as well as a new trade partnership for the region’s democracies.
But Obama’s pivot to East Asia will be incomplete if does not include South Asia and India as well. US officials seem reluctant to link India to this policy. They should do so as a signal to New Delhi of strategic commitment and to Beijing that we are serious about maintaining a US presence in Asia for decades to come.
Americans have learned that we cannot shrink from our global responsibilities and that we cannot hope to succeed by acting alone in the world. We will thus need to rely on friends new and old alike to defend against the tough challenges and to take advantage of the more positive opportunities that lie ahead. If we are patient, India can be one of those friends.
(Source: Boston.com)
-
Can the Supreme Court Mediate the Partisan Debate Over Health Reform?
By Kirstin Krusell
Barack Obama began his presidency with hopes for a new era of post-partisanship. However, the turbulent debate surrounding healthcare reform— the Administration’s flagship domestic policy—is symptomatic of a political environment that is more contentious than ever. Republican presidential candidates have sworn to repeal President Obama’s 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), and many states are vehemently opposed to its provisions. As a result, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in late March on the constitutionality of the legislation. Given that 17% of America’s GDP is spent on healthcare, the stakes are high.
The primary challenge to the ACA concerns the minimum coverage provision, or individual mandate, requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Challengers argue that Congress has overstepped its authority to regulate commerce by compelling citizens to enter contracts with private companies. They further contend that the less-discussed Medicaid expansion provision is coercive and defies limits on the spending power of Congress.
What does this case mean for the relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches in today’s combative political climate? Both the Obama Administration and the law’s opponents have a vested political interest in the Court’s decision, as the outcome will have a significant impact on the results of the 2012 presidential election. But there are strong legal arguments on both sides of this issue. Typically, a Supreme Court case is allotted about an hour of oral argument. Yet the five and a half hours of oral argument scheduled for the ACA case—the longest since Miranda v. Arizona in 1966—signals that the Court considers it among the most important and complex challenges to federal power in nearly half a century.
I believe that as the final arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to rise above partisan politics and to move America toward a solution for one of the defining challenges of the 21st century. But it seems many Americans do not trust the Court to be impartial. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 60 percent of the public expect the Justices to rely more heavily on ideology than legal analysis when considering the healthcare law, demonstrating just how discouraged Americans have become at the polarized nature of American politics.
Nevertheless, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, one of the attorneys representing the opposition, expressed confidence at a recent panel discussion that the Court will engage in objective judicial review. Indeed, this is the purpose envisioned for the Supreme Court by the Constitution’s framers. James Madison wrote that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the partisan tumult of the political process. This is no less true today, and evidence suggests that partisanship will not mar the independent judgment such an important decision requires. In late 2011, conservative Judge Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals surprised observers when—despite his personal opposition to the law—he wrote that according to precedent, Congress has acted within its authority under the Commerce Clause. This is a hopeful sign for impartial legal analysis.
Yet, the Court is not designed merely to uphold individual rights in accordance with the Constitution. It is also meant to ensure that the Constitution remains a “living” document, whose interpretation evolves to accommodate an increasingly complicated world. In this sense, the Supreme Court is “distinctly American in concept and function,” as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes has noted. And it is this institution that America may look toward for a model of non-partisan consensus-building that upholds both the ideals of liberty and progress.
Kirstin Krusell is a Health Policy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. She graduated magna cum laude from Brown University, with a Bachelor of Arts in International Development.
-
Honolulu Conference on the Vietnam War
President Lyndon B. Johnson (2nd from right) arriving at St. Augustine Church for services. Congr. Spark Matsunaga (left of LBJ) and an agent holding umbrellas.
February 6, 1966
-
Little Mention of Affordable Care Act in Last Week’s State of the Union
By Daranee Yongpradit, Health Policy Fellow, CSPC
Source: Washington Post - Word cloud using text from President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address
For a topic that is arguably Obama’s most significant domestic policy accomplishment — the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed in 2010 — health care received almost no mention during last week’s State of the Union. Many people tagged this year’s State of the Union as Obama’s campaign roadmap, so where does this place healthcare in his election priorities?
Throughout his entire speech, Obama mentioned “health care” or “health insurance” a total of 3 times, compared to 6 in 2011 and 10 in 2010. Despite these few references, he did reaffirm his refusal to back down on health care reform, “I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage or charge women differently from men.”
Part of the reason for the Affordable Care Act’s omission may be its complexity. The law itself is a series of provisions, some of which were either implemented immediately with the ACA’s passage in 2010, shortly thereafter, or wait to become effective in 2014. Because of the staged roll-out of these provisions, many Americans are confused by what is actually covered by the ACA and what is not.
Additionally, Obama may not have wanted to draw attention to the ACA in light of the upcoming Supreme Court case filed by 26 states alleging that parts of the ACA, in particular the “Individual Mandate” which would require all individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, are unconstitutional. According to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll (January 2012), only a minority of the American public would like to see the law repealed entirely (22%), while 44% said they had an unfavorable view.
Moreover, most Americans would rather hear about the creation of jobs and economic recovery. In a recent USA TODAY/Gallup poll, only 11% of the 1005 adults surveyed answered that health care was the most important issue for Obama to address during the State of the Union. With such a divide created by partisan politics, Obama promoted unifying people under the banner of an American economy with reduced outsourcing. He highlighted his successes, such as the complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and eliminating Osama bin Laden. He emphasized taxes and deficit reduction, calling for a minimum 30 percent tax rate for annual incomes greater than $1 million.
Regardless of political affiliation and personal opinions aside, health care reform is one of the most important issues facing this country. The Affordable Care Act remains a cornerstone of Obama’s accomplishments during this term. Although not explicitly mentioned, it still occupies much of his attention as he tries to ensure that many of its policies are enacted. While the ACA provides promise for the future, Obama’s current focus is on economic prosperity in the present.
-
Next Steps in the Pursuit of Civility
by Parry VanLandingham
Calls for greater civility in politics by politicians, pundits, and commentators have often been decried as just a lot of talk without any meaningful effort to get down to the nuts and bolts of how we can actually create a more civil dialogue. However, in the year since Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, there have been an increasing number of organizations and individuals proposing concrete reforms to try to create a more civil political system.
The non-partisan organization No Labels has recently begun to push their “Make Congress Work” plan which includes twelve specific reforms of Congress. One of these reforms, which calls for all presidential appointees to receive an up or down vote within 90 days of their names being submitted to the Senate, was endorsed by President Obama in his State of the Union address this week.
It is a great sign that serious reforms are being proposed, but there is no doubt that many of these reforms will be a difficult pill to swallow for current politicians and especially party leadership. It will take a long-term effort and a broad coalition to see them through.
One of the most interesting forums that has grown out of this discussion is CivilPolitics.org. Utilizing the perspectives and principles of academic disciplines, specifically social psychology and political science, CivilPolitics.org analyzes the barriers to civility in the political system and the various reforms being proposed to increase civil discourse. Directed by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia, Matt Motyl (also from UVA) and Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California, the site also boasts other noted scholars on the subject such as University of Connecticut President Susan Herbst (click here for her 2010 keynote address to the CSPC Presidential Fellows).
While the site is currently being expanded, spaces for discussion and information on a number of possible areas for intervention such as redistricting, primaries, and the media have already been started. And during a time of increasing deadlock among leaders in Washington, avenues for pushing out new ideas of cooperation are needed more than ever.
Moving from talk to action on civility is an important step for our country, but it is going to take a combined effort from many groups and leaders to implement practical and effective reforms. The efforts from No Labels and CivilPolitics.org are a good starting point and will hopefully continue to build a network dedicated to building guiding principles and practical steps for more civil discourse in our political system.
Parry VanLandingham is the Director of the Center’s Presidential Fellows Program. She also led the Center’s project on Civility and the American Experience. She received her Bachelor of Arts from Rice University, graduating magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in Political Science with an emphasis on international relations.
-
America cannot afford to isolate itself
by CSPC Trustee Tom Ridge and Donna Shalala
Whoever places his hand on the Bible next January to be sworn in as president will take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” and provide for the common defense of our country. Keeping that oath will require a commitment to American leadership in an ever-changing world.
That is why all of today’s candidates — both the president and his Republican challengers — must articulate how they will maintain our nation’s security, prosperity, and values we hold so dear.
The brave men and women in our armed forces are second to none in the world, but providing for our common defense and re-igniting our engine of prosperity today requires more than just military might. We need a comprehensive foreign policy approach that includes not only defense, but also effective diplomacy and development assistance programs to ensure America’s protection, stability, and economic growth.
As the Republican presidential hopefuls crisscross Florida ahead of next week’s primary, they will address their plans to keep America at the top of its game on the global stage. Miami is recognized as the “Gateway to the Americas,” and we understand the challenges and opportunities that come with that title.
Right now trade supports one in five jobs here in Florida — a figure that has nearly doubled as a percentage of total jobs in the state in the past two decades. In 2010, Florida exported nearly $60 billion in merchandise to foreign markets. The future of our economic growth is in the international sector, and the fastest growing markets for U.S. goods and services are in the developing world. That’s why the small investment we make in our international affairs budget — just one percent of the total federal budget — acts as a jobs and revenue creator here at home.
People recognize the Sunshine State as one of the top tourist destinations in the world, bringing millions to the local economy. What Floridians may not know is that almost 30,000 international students study here each year through international exchanges. That intellectual capital brings about $800 million to the Florida economy. These students contribute to the vibrancy and diversity of our universities, colleges, and communities, while experiencing and learning why America is a truly great nation.
In addition to being good for business, our global programs are critical in protecting America and especially in preventing conflicts before they require military intervention. With our troops pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are going to need a strong corps of civilians on the ground to finish the job and win the peace. And as the Arab Awakening continues to unfold, we need our diplomats and experts there to ensure democracy has a chance to succeed and provide stability in that strategic region.
America has always stood on the side of liberty and served as a beacon of freedom and democracy for the rest of the world. Every day, we showcase the best of our values as we teach others how to grow food for themselves, develop good governance in their societies, and build their own economies. And we are also there in times of dire need — in the aftermath of a tsunami, hurricane or earthquake, in the ongoing battle to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases that ravage developing countries, and in working to end the famine and poverty that far too often breeds instability.
It is always difficult to maintain our investments and commitments in times of economic difficulty and rising government debt. But from our respective times in Washington overseeing homeland security and the nation’s healthcare, we know that the alternative of stepping back from our leadership in the world is far worse. We cannot afford to isolate ourselves, letting others take our competitive edge in the global economy or by allowing our enemies to catch us with our guard down.
What we need in Washington today are individuals who recognize the importance of America’s leadership in the world, and we call on all of the candidates in 2012 to understand that it takes all of the tools available to us — diplomacy, development, and defense — to ensure America remains a leader for decades to come.
Tom Ridge is former governor of Pennsylvania and served as the nation’s first secretary of Homeland Security. Donna E. Shalala is the president of University of Miami and former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Both are advisors to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition.
(Source: miamiherald.com)
-
Obesity Rate Decreases Among NYC Students
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has made it his mission to encourage healthier habits among New Yorkers, and some are crediting the city’s efforts with a 5.5 percent decrease in obesity rates among New York City’s school children since 2006. While this may seem to be a small decrease, it is actually the largest decline recorded in any major city, and according to Mayor Bloomberg, it translates to 6,500 fewer obese students in New York City’s schools.
“What’s impressive is the fact that it’s falling at all,” said Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the city’s health commissioner. Indeed, recent national and regional studies have indicated that childhood obesity rates are flattening or slightly increasing in other parts of America. The results of the NYC study, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), were based on fitness exams given annually to students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
Mayor Bloomberg has instituted numerous measures to prevent obesity and chronic illness in NYC, particularly among children. As part of this campaign, the city has included more nutritious options (such as salad bars) in school lunch menus, and has trained 4,000 elementary school teachers on steps to incorporate physical activity into the classroom schedule. Additionally, the city has set limits on the calorie and sugar content of foods available in school vending machines. These restrictions will soon be extended to include vending machines in all city buildings.
The city has also been engaged in an aggressive advertising campaign to reduce the consumption of sugary beverages. In 2010, the Mayor applied for a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for permission to restrict the purchase of soda with food stamp benefits. Ultimately, the USDA denied the waiver request. While the measure proved controversial due to some people’s concerns about unfairly restricting the choices of low-income populations, nevertheless it demonstrated a firm commitment to advancing public health. And indeed, the city’s health commissioner believes that the city’s efforts have driven the decline in NYC’s obesity rates.
However, the highest rate of decrease (9.9%) was among children in kindergarten and first grade (ages 5-6), indicating that school-based health and nutrition changes are likely not the primary cause for the decline. The study’s authors were also hesitant to attribute the reduction in obesity rates to the city’s fitness interventions, suggesting instead that changes in the school and home environment “might” have been contributing factors.
Moreover, some researchers note that efforts to improve the food environment and to increase physical activity may not to be reaching all children. The drop in obesity rates was highest among white children, at 12.5 percent. The decrease was 3.4 percent for Hispanic children, and only 1.9 percent for African-American children, indicating that perhaps more targeted, community-based solutions are required, such as eliminating food deserts, improving access to recreational spaces, and limiting fast food marketing in low-income neighborhoods.
-
Is childhood obesity a form of neglect? – Cleveland thinks so
In the first case of its kind, on December 14th, 2011, a Cuyahoga County court in Cleveland, Ohio ruled to remove a 200-pound, 8-year-old boy from his mother’s custody. The ruling determined the boy’s obese health status was a form of childhood neglect, stating that the child’s mother was not doing enough to control his weight gain. County workers were first alerted about the boy’s health problems in early 2010 when his mother brought him into the hospital for breathing difficulties. At that time, the boy was diagnosed with sleep apnea, a direct health consequence related to his obesity. The boy was given a breathing machine to alleviate his acute symptoms. To maintain his long-term health, the social workers began to exercise their right to “protective supervision,” and began to monitor his weight fluctuations and subsequent health risks.
Upon recommendations by the social workers, the mother enrolled the boy in a special Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital Program called “Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight.” Since 2005, the program has evaluated 900 overweight and obese children between the ages of 4-8. A team of specialists, including physicians, nutritionists and psychologists, educate the children and their families about healthy eating habits. One of the program’s co-directors noted that the program is important for preventing the long-term consequences of weight gain. Typically, these children suffer from an increased likelihood of Type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension, which can lead to a decreased life span, diminished quality of life and increased health care costs.
While the boy was enrolled in this program, he continued to gain weight. After a year of monitoring, on October 19th, 2011 social workers removed the boy away from his mother’s custody and placed him in a foster home, to evaluate whether an environmental change would help the child lose weight. In fact, it did, as the boy’s weight dropped to 192 pounds during the period. With the prosecution using this fact to bolster their argument, the court ruled against the mother, giving custody of the boy to his uncle. The mother will have weekly visits and spend the holidays unsupervised with her 8-year-old son. However, for the time being, officials view the boy’s obesity as an imminent health threat as reason enough to put him in an alternative
While this boy’s case has been addressed for now, there are about 1,380 third-graders in Cuyahoga County alone who are also severely obese.[i] The state health department predicts approximately 12 percent of the third-graders state weight are obese. The dilemma of this Cuyahoga County case – is childhood obesity a form of neglect? – remains unresolved for many other children. The case plays into an emerging national debate on the issue. While experts’ opinions vary, ranging from the need for aggressive intervention by removing the child from the home to passive intervention in the form of physician’s interventions, ultimately a contradiction exists. On one hand, the Cuyahoga County court has implicated a mother for child neglect because of her son’s weight; on the other hand, the food industry is permitted to, without regulation, target the same age population with their unhealthy food marketing campaigns.
Experts’ opinions on the matter vary. On one hand, researcher Dr. David Luwig, Harvard University professor and pediatric obesity expert, urges children’s service agencies to intervene in severe cases, sighting a failure to control imminent weight-related health concerns as a form of neglect.[ii] Experts urge that this neglect is similar to physical abuse – an imminent danger to the child’s health. Others, including Dr. Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, advocates for a broader public –policy approach before separating families. While he agrees that “A 218-pound, 8-year-old is a time bomb,” Dr. Caplan underscores the impracticalities of such an approach. Approximately one third of America’s children are overweight or obese. Logistically speaking, the foster care system in the United States is not capable of taking care of all of them. Furthermore, the emotional and economic consequences of placing them in foster homes, followed by associated health care costs, does not make this a viable option. Instead, Professor Caplan urges that we reconsider the hypocritical policies of our nation, mainly the inevitable contradiction that exists when we categorize childhood obesity as neglect, yet allow for unrestricted food marketing to our children and instead develop a comprehensive public policy approach.
What are the ethical implications of removing a child from his home for weight concerns, while allowing for unregulated marketing of unhealthy foods (such as the recent controversy of advocating pizza to be considered a vegetable)? The Cuyahoga County boy may be one example; the national obesity crisis remains unresolved. Should this single case set the precedent for millions of other American children or will we demonstrate the political will and commit the resources to address obesity and reverse its toll for the next generation? Categorizing childhood obesity as neglect is, at best, a short-term solution. With the projected increasing obesity rates, it is infeasible and undesirable to remove all overweight or obese children from their parents’ custody. Furthermore, we must think about the emotional and mental implications as well as the stigma associated with disrupting a nuclear family unit. This is not a viable policy approach for the growing obesity epidemic among our nation’s youth. Further effective public policy approaches are needed that can be sustained long-term. Should the food industry be regulated in their campaigns targeting children? Should economic incentives exist for families who maintain a healthy start for their children? Whether or not these particular policies are adopted, the need for this national dialogue is urgent.
[i]Dissell, Rachel. “County places obese Cleveland Heights child in foster care.” http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/obese_cleveland_heights_child.html
[ii] Turley, Jonathan. “Harvard Professor Under Fire After Calling For Obese Children To Be Removed From Homes In Severe Cases.” http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/14/harvad-professor-under-fire-after-calling-for-obese-children-to-be-removed-from-homes-in-severe-cases/#more-37073
-
Farm Bill Hackathon: The Results
The Farm Bill, despite its important role in shaping the food system in America, is so complex that it is little understood by most people. On December 3, 2011 the first ever Farm Bill Hackathon set out to remedy this situation. Although the term may sound ominous, a “hackathon” is simply an event where programmers gather either in person or online to collaborate on technology-based projects. In this case, the project goal was to design infographics and online tools to make the provisions and implications of the Farm Bill more understandable to the American public.
Led by media company Food+ Tech Connect, ten organizations sponsored the event, hoping to promote civic engagement, to present data to policymakers in a more tangible way, and to envision new solutions through interdisciplinary teamwork. The response was significant, with a diverse group of 120 designers, data visualizers, developers, marketing experts, food policy specialists, and USDA employees gathering in New York City to bring their infographics and online tools “from concept to execution in a single day”. In fact, in just a 12-hour period, multiple teams created five graphics and four tools, which address issues including farm subsidies, food waste, global hunger, and support to new farmers.
The process was designed to be participatory. First, Food+Tech Connect issued a Save the Date calling for ideas “for tools or visualizations that will assist you or your organization in communicating the Farm Bill’s implications to the public”. In the interests of public engagement, the organization also encouraged other groups and individuals to host their own Farm Bill hackathons. A full list of proposed topics is available here.
Part of the winning infographic (pictured above), depicts the disparity between the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans and federal farm subsidies. Given SNAP to Health’s focus on catalyzing change in the 2012 Farm Bill, the fourth place winner also merits notice. Although still a work in progress, a map is being developed that illustrates the Congressional Districts of members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives Agricultural Committees. “Integrating data from multiple sources, the maps will allow users to see who is on the committees, where they are from, their website and contact information and other pertinent information like who is supporting them financially and what is grown in their region,” reports Food+Tech Connect.
Prominent blogger, author, and academic Marion Nestle, Ph.D. also called for a more accessible Farm Bill document, which members of the general public can easily understand. Although readily available on the web, the language of the 663-page 2008 Farm Bill is difficult to read “because it refers to previous bills and other acts of Congress”, says Nestle.
A recent project by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) aims to solve this very problem. CLF recently launched the Farm Bill Budget Visualizer, an interactive tool that uses “treemap” technology to demonstrate how funds from the 2008 Farm Bill were allocated across an array of issues, from conservation to commodity support to public health. This is demonstrated graphically using nested rectangles. Learn more about this innovative new tool by watching Healthy Food Action’s webinar, Visualizing Health and the Farm Bill.
(Source: snaptohealth.org)
