Starbucks - 1, Mike Bloomberg - 0 UPDATED

Another one of Mayor Bloomberg's big government bans is about to go into effect. Starting tomorrow, resident's of America's largest city will no longer be able to purchase "sugary" drinks larger than 16oz. All restaurants and stores that receive a letter grade from the health department will face

Here's what Mike Bloomberg had to say about the new regulations on Face the Nation with CBS's Bob Schieffer this weekend:

"And all we're doing in New York is reminding you that it's not in your interest to have too many empty calories.  You're going to have some.  If you want to have 32 ounces, just by two 16‑ounce cups, take them back to your sink.  You want a 64 ounces, take four cups back.  But what's likely to happen here is you'll take one and probably not come back for the second.  But it's totally your choice.  We're not banning anything.  It's called portion control."

"Anybody get the key phrase there from Michael Bloomberg, mayor McFascist?" Pat asked after hearing the audio clip.

"It's not in your best interest."

Does "Great and Powerful" Bloomberg really not think fining businesses, eliminating options for customers, and making businesses small and large throw thousands of dollars of products out the window is "restricting"? Nope. According to the Mayor banning that certain size of beverages be sold isn't "banning", it's just "portion control".

"You remind people about something by, what, posting a sign?  Not restricting their choices," Stu noted.

"I just…I don't know how he's not impeached," Pat said.

(Neither does this Atlanta born New Yorker…but then again, I come from the birthplace of Coca-Cola where this would never fly.)

"New York gets everything…everything they deserve," Glenn emphasized.

It's true. This is exactly what New Yorkers voted for -- 3x. Mike Bloomberg didn't wake up this year and turn into Captain Regulation. He's been re-elected twice — yes, TWICE. In fact, he changed the term limit laws to allow his 3rd term run and was STILL re-elected.

And while New Yorkers may not rise up to make their voices heard, Starbucks is. They've taken the city of New York to court.

"If Starbucks gets it overturned, great," Glenn said. "But if they don't, Starbucks should send the message: 'New York is not that important to us'."

Glenn explained that because of the way the Supreme Courts rules on legislation, these types of regulations always that progressives continues to push and push and push, spread nationally.

"The reason why they [progressives] are doing this is because they will then come back and say common sense states, like Colorado, are already doing this.  And the Supreme Court is already saying that they go and they look at international law and what the states are doing," Glenn explained to listeners.

Pat added that if food chains like McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's banded together to pulled out of these states [like New York], or simply put the pressure on that they would pull out of these cities, the law would change.

But if they don't, and the law expands to more than just New York, their menus are going to change nationwide and this law is going to impact you — not just New York.

"I think that's the design of Bloomberg," Stu added. "That's why he loves his job so much."


Lucky for sugary drink lovers (and lovers of making their own decisions), as of 3:16pm ET, is reporting that a judge has overturned New York City's proposed ban on all sugary drinks larger than 16oz.

The judge said on Monday that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempts at "portion control" were both "arbitrary" and "capricious".

New Yorkers should probably assume that, while this method may not have worked, Bloomberg's efforts won't be stopped just yet.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.

President Donald Trump has done a remarkable job of keeping his campaign promises so far. From pulling the US from the Iran Deal and Paris Climate Accord to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the president has followed through on his campaign trail vows.

RELATED: The media's derangement over Trump has me wearing a new hat and predicting THIS for 2020

“It's quite remarkable. I don't know if anybody remembers, but I was the guy who was saying he's not gonna do any of those things," joked Glenn on “The News and Why it Matters," adding, “He has taken massive steps, massive movement or completed each of those promises … I am blown away."

Watch the video above to hear Glenn Beck, Sara Gonzales, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray discuss the story.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."