Kentucky's bourbon business is vital to our economy. Don't let DC dry it up.
Kentuckians, like all Americans, should be deeply concerned about the troubling developments that have been unfolding behind closed doors in Washington, D.C.
Anti-alcohol activists are attempting to seize control of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on alcohol, potentially inflicting significant harm on our state's economy and our way of life.
The Kentucky beverage retail industry is a vital part of our state's economy, with direct retail alcohol sales supporting more than 17,000 jobs and contributing $1.4 billion in economic activity. Many of these businesses are small, family-run operations with tight margins, whose livelihoods are directly threatened by this opaque and potentially damaging process.
These activists are pushing for radical changes, advocating that no level of alcohol consumption is safe and pushing for a limit of a mere one drink per week or less. This extreme position flies in the face of established scientific consensus.
Opinion: Mid City Mall development can help rebuild our shrinking Highlands community
Disturbingly, the process has been tainted by questionable practices. During the Biden administration, anti-alcohol activists appear to have gained undue influence, creating a separate panel not authorized by Congress that disregarded the scientific consensus. They selectively interpreted studies to align with their predetermined ideological agenda.
Thankfully, our own Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has been a tireless advocate for transparency and sound science in this process. He has been dogged in his investigation into the development of these alcohol consumption guidelines, exposing this opaque approach where unelected bureaucrats, many with foreign affiliations, are crafting policy behind closed doors.
Rep. Comer's recent letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, and Brooke Rollins, the secretary of agriculture, highlights the critical flaws in this process. He rightly pointed out how 'these overlapping evaluations went outside of the congressionally mandated review processes and issued conflicting guidance to the American public.' Rep. Comer's commitment to ensuring the dietary guidelines for alcohol are based on 'rigorous, sound, and objective scientific evidence, efficiently steward taxpayer dollars, and adhere to congressional intent' is commendable.
Gerth: Trump's big budget bill sparks debate with Massie. Can't they both lose? | Opinion
Rep. Brett Guthrie is also to be commended for his leadership on this issue. Rep. Guthrie has been a strong voice for Kentuckians and has worked diligently to ensure that the dietary guidelines are based on sound science and not on ideological agendas.
Secretaries Kennedy and Rollins have the power to halt this concerning process and restore integrity to the development of these crucial guidelines. We urge them to act swiftly and decisively.
Until they do, it is imperative that our entire Kentucky delegation, including our senators and representatives, continue to shine a light on this issue and demand transparency. They must make it clear that bias, conflicts of interest and cherry-picked science have no place in the dietary guidelines that impact millions of Americans.
Tell us what you think. Submit a letter to the editor.
Brian Edwards is the co-owner of Cellar Door Wine & Spirits and Thoroughbred Spirits in Murray, Kentucky.
This story was updated to add a gallery.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: KY, demand alcohol guidelines based on science, not bias | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's the Minimum Net Worth To Be Considered the Top 1% in Your 60s
Ever wonder how your nest egg stacks up as you near retirement? If you're in your 60s and curious about what it takes to break into the elusive top 1%, you're not alone. According to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth for Americans in their late 60s and early 70s is $266,400. That's much, much lower than what the elite are working with. Read More: Find Out: 'People often assume that a few million dollars in savings places them at the summit of the wealth ladder, yet the numbers tell a different story once you compare yourself with the true top one percent,' said Andrew Gosselin, CPA, personal finance expert, and senior contributor at Save My Cent. Whether you're just getting serious about wealth-building or already eyeing early retirement, here's what you need to know about the net worth benchmarks that define the financial elite in your age group. 'To be in the top 1% wealth bracket in your 60s, you're typically looking at a net worth north of $11 million in the U.S., though this varies depending on the state you live in,' said Michael Foguth, founder of Foguth Financial Group. 'But here's the thing, chasing that number alone won't guarantee peace of mind.' Gosselin agreed, noting that a person in their sixties usually needs between eleven and thirteen million dollars to break into that elite club in the United States. The threshold climbs because assets must cover not only daily living but also medical costs, longer life spans, and rising prices that quietly shrink the buying power of every dollar. 'A nest egg that looked enormous twenty years ago can feel average when groceries, travel, and housing have each ratcheted up in cost,' Gosselin explained. Discover Next: Inside that eleven to thirteen million target, Gosselin said the balance sheet of a typical one-percenter in their sixties often starts with a primary home valued near a million dollars. Add a rental property or two that contribute both appreciation and steady cash flow and you edge closer to the mark. Retirement accounts such as a 401(k) or IRA frequently carry another million or more because long stretches of tax-advantaged growth compound quietly in the background. 'A diversified mix of stocks, bonds, and alternative holdings like private equity fills in several hundred thousand more and guards against relying on a single asset class,' said Gosselin. Moreover, cash reserves of at least one hundred thousand remain essential for unplanned events, allowing other investments to keep working without forced sales when markets dip. Gosselin explained that a net worth of about one million dollars can secure top one percent status worldwide, though that figure varies greatly from one country to another. Residents of Monaco, for example, may still need well over twelve million to stand out, while families in emerging economies reach the same percentile with much less. Location, therefore, plays a pivotal role in how far each dollar stretches and how exclusive a wealth bracket is. But according to Foguth, what matters at that stage in life is how well your money supports your lifestyle. 'Are your retirement goals covered? Do you have a plan for healthcare and legacy giving?' He's worked with clients who aren't in the top 1%, but said they sleep better at night than some who are, simply because they've got a solid financial plan in place. 'Wealth is relative, and in your 60s, the goal should be financial freedom, not just financial flex,' said Foguth. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks This article originally appeared on Here's the Minimum Net Worth To Be Considered the Top 1% in Your 60s
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida Libertarians, meeting in Daytona Beach, sense opportunity in Musk-Trump breakup
DAYTONA BEACH − Fallout from the week's nuclear-bomb-level blowup between President Donald Trump and his billionaire buddy Elon Musk had yet to settle when a few dozen true believers in absolute freedom and small government gathered to map out plans for the 2026 election. The Libertarian Party of Florida held its annual convention at The Daytona Hotel June 6-7, and attendees were energized by the opportunities presented by the Trump-Musk spat and skepticism about Trump's spending plan, aka the "Big, Beautiful Bill," that's being hashed out in the Senate. Steven Nekhaila, national chair of the Libertarian Party, is from Key West and was in attendance at the Daytona convention. He described a Republican-Democratic "duopoly," two boots of the same creature that continue to kick the American public that keeps electing it. "We have a saying. There's nobody more Libertarian than a Republican who's running for office until they get in power," Nekhalia said in a June 7 interview. "And we've seen that with the GOP over and over again at the federal level." Following Musk's break with Trump, the world's richest man posted to X, his own social-media platform: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Smelling an opportunity, Nekhaila pounced, posting: "We've been building this party for the 80% who are tired of being ruled by liars, spenders and tyrants. The door is open. The Libertarian Party isn't new, but it's finally impossible to ignore." While Nekhalia worked at a national level, other Libertarians at the Daytona convention were eying positions at the local and state level. Two Libertarians elected at the local level in Seminole County led a candidate training session. Altamonte Springs City Commissioner Jim Turney and Winter Springs City Commissioner Paul Diaz talked about how in Florida, most local elected positions are non-partisan, which creates an opportunity for minor-party candidates to introduce themselves to their communities and build trust without running into the major-party machinery. Turney suggested that when presenting themselves, candidates be Libertarian, authentic and themselves. Diaz said he campaigned in 2024 on a message that much of what is being proposed by government is outside of its role. "Is that really the role of government? Is that really what we should be doing? My line during my campaign was, 'Government's role is not to entertain people.'" Diaz said. "Stick to what we're supposed to be doing, and in my case I go right back to my lane, which is fiscally sound policy, only doing what you're supposed to do, and why on Earth are you even proposing a budget that's going to increase ... a tax increase ... when you still have mismanagement in your books?" As a two-time candidate, Matt Johnson, the state chairman, learned that he had a better shot when he ran for the DeLand City Commission in 2022 than the Florida Legislature in 2024. Even though the City Commission was a nonpartisan race, Johnson said the first question out of most voters' mouths was whether he was a Republican or Democrat. "I was able to take just over 30% away from an incumbent in a heavily Republican district," Johnson said. In the 2024 Florida House District 29 race, incumbent state Rep. Webster Barnaby won 55.6% of the vote over Democrat Rosemarie Latham and Johnson, who managed just 2.8%. "Our messaging and our policies and our methodologies of governing (are) popular, but when it comes down to the machine that is the Republicans and the Democrats, we just don't have the money to compete, and so I would say start small, start local, win there, where your party is not allowed to be a part of the discussion, build a resume of success and fighting for their rights," Johnson said. The Libertarian Party, founded in 1971, has hung on as a minor party because of its core beliefs, Johnson said. "Our principles are more aligned with the founders than either of the two parties as they currently exist," he said. "What keeps me going is I believe if humanity, if Americans, DeLandites, Volusia County citizens are to fully live to their full potential, they have to be as free as possible without government intervention. I think it is purely principles that keeps us going." Libertarian Joe Hannoush, an Ormond Beach resident who has run for multiple offices over the past decade, said he has previously been a member of both the Republican and Democratic parties. "I left for the same reason. They don't do what they actually believe," Hannoush said. "They tell you they're for anti-war and they keep going to war. They tell you they're for fiscal responsibility. They keep raising the debt. Both sides. ... I think we have to have hope because the only other option is another revolution, you know, and I'm not ready for that, so I'm trying to do it the peaceful way, the voting way." Hannoush said he is "hopeful" the Libertarians will soon be on an "upward swing," but he also cautioned that the parties involved in the Trump-Musk clash of titans have self-interest at heart. Musk − owner of Tesla, the electric car manufacturer − has expressed dismay that a Joe Biden-era electric vehicle mandate will be eliminated, while Trump has also threatened to cut Musk's company off from other government contracts. "Libertarians want an equal playing field under government. Not having government pick winners and losers," Hannoush said. "Most people don't want to have that spending, which is what the Big, Beautiful Bill does. The Big Beautiful Debt is what it is." This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Libertarians stand for small government. Can any win in 2026 election?
