Better that, than the Governor of New York.
David Patterson, who holds that position, has proposed a tax in that state on soda pop, with the stated intent to curb people’s intake of that harmful substance. Patterson’s office attributes an epidemic of obesity to junk food consumption, asserting that “almost one in four New Yorkers under age 18 are [sic] obese.”
Whew! Isn’t it great that residents in the state of New York have someone so smart, who can dictate what to drink and what not to drink? Yes, surely that’s what those poor folks have been missing, and now the epidemic will subside.
What?! Their inability to refrain from bad foods isn’t unique? You mean, we in California need such help, too?
Of course, it’s possible that the real epidemic is the number of officials who think being elected to office proves their intellectual and moral superiority. Once elected, they appear to have no reservations about telling the rest of us how we should live.
And for us, that’s the real issue: Who has the right to tell others how to behave?
We agree with the governor that soda pop has marginal nutritional value, and we’d bet that nobody really needs a 64-ounce Double Big Gulp, at a reported 800 calories from 59 teaspoons of sugar; that’s about a third of the recommended daily caloric intake total for men.
The problem is that once we accept the right of the government to tax beverage and food items selectively, whether in the name of health or some other social “good,” then it can’t be long before other favorites are on the list, too, such as french fries, ice cream, donuts and candy canes. Perhaps we can get a religious exemption for that last one, at least on a seasonal basis, but there is great danger in granting government such power over our personal lives.
Certainly, it’s not a good thing for someone to overeat, but who’s victimized, really? Is it now the job of government to tell us how much of what to eat, using the taxing power of the state to do so? Maybe it is, but there’s danger there, for who knows what might be ruled “bad” food some day. Chocolate? Perish the thought!
We appreciated the comment from a participant in the local community meeting last week in response to President-Elect Obama’s call for opinions about health care in the country. The person said, “When I’m paying for my health insurance, I don’t want to be paying for people who are still smoking and eating trans fats.” The implication is that, with a move to single-payer health insurance, there in fact may be victims from someone else’s bad health choices, namely, the rest of us. Of course, people who have good health habits and good insurance coverage are already paying for other people’s poor choices, but would a single-payer system better that situation, or make it worse?
We note, too, that a tax on food or beverages is a fixed amount, which costs low-income people a greater percentage of their income than it does others. The high tax on cigarettes is a classic example. Perhaps this regressive nature of the soda pop tax ensures more success as an exercise in social engineering.
And lest anyone think we’re not seriously concerned, ponder the disastrous consequences for certain groups of people in the notable social engineering projects of the last century. Using the power of government to regulate personal behavior generally turns out badly for someone. In our view, moderation of government, as well as of calories, is a healthier lifestyle.
