-
Coming Out of Their Shells
August 6, 2009 | 4 comments
-
Quotations from Speaker Newt
August 5, 2009 | 0 comments
-
Obama's Latest Clunker
July 28, 2009 | 11 comments
-
Revolutionary Fervor for July 4th
July 7, 2009 | 1 comment
-
Congressional Conservatives Offer Health Care Alternative
June 24, 2009 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The federal government and individual state governments are facing widespread budget falls for this fiscal year and the next. It's a pity spending less is not in the left-wing toolbox of solutions. Instead, we face possible taxes on unhealthy foods from the federal government as discussed this week at the Center for Disease Control's first ever Weight of the Nation conference.
The conference's stated goals include exploring "law-based efforts to prevent and control obesity" and published a report recommending policy be put in place to eliminate unhealthy food choices, to force portion sizes to be reduced, to set lower prices for healthier foods in public venues, and to implement stricter advertising control.
The suggested means in which to equalize prices between "health" and "unhealthy" food and to provide "incentives" to achieve these other goals is through government policy and new taxes. This is just the beginning of the new tax craze to help make up for budget deficits across the nation, as CDC Director Thomas Frieden suggested a tax on sugary drinks as a possible solution in efforts to decrease availability and increase costs of foods deemed "unhealthy."
While potentially increasing revenues, this concept is one that
leads down the ominous slippery slope to the nanny state,
dictating what the government allows us to consume. Other new
taxes proposed by states also seem to have at best unintended
consequences leading to an expanded role of government in private
affairs and at worst a calculated attempt to use the deficit as
means of further means of control over citizens.
On a state level, New York has considered such a fat tax, as well as taxes on a number of other everyday goods and services to make ends meet. California has also tried to tax away our vices with an increased tax on cigarettes and proposed taxes on marijuana for recreational (which would also require legalizing it first) and medicinal use. Many states have considered gambling taxes and in Georgia, strip club taxes were debated.
Amidst the Obama crusade to give everyone affordable health care, there's even talk of taxing insurance plans over a certain amount. Taxes on these specific items have an underlying agenda beyond balancing the budget. Both state and federal governments are doing their best to dictate what food you eat, the amount of health care coverage you receive, and what vices you may or may not partake in.
More taxation and government control hurt consumers and businesses alike. It's one more reason to start demanding personal responsibility -- and fiscal responsibility too.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Molly O'Connor
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/30/chewing-the-fat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Medicaid Freedom of Choice
- Media Trackers Hits Wisconsin
- The Road to Heaven
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MLG| 7.30.09 @ 6:08PM
So they want to put Dairy Farms, Pepsi, Coke, Nabisco, Kellogs, Sunshine Cookies, MARS, Nestle et al products out of reach of the 'poor' and only allow those who can afford the tax the luxury of an Oreo Cookie with Whole Milk? What a Great Society!
Kat| 7.30.09 @ 11:11PM
Watch "King Corn" and then try to tell me that the government didn't start using taxes to control what people could afford to eat (i.e., by making nutritionally vacant corn cheaply available for Pepsi, Coke, Nabisco and Kellogg to make unhealthy processed foods) under the leadership of Earl Butz in the Regan administration. I have trouble believing that a situation in which (a) food manufacturers don't care about the health of their consumers or the environment, and (b) their manufacturing processes are almost completely opaque to the average consumer-- is truly benefiting the consumer. And tt's hard to fault the irresponsible individual when the only beef available in the average grocery store is from a CAFO cow pumped full of antibiotics and force-fed corn and leftover body parts of other animals (the cow is a grass-eater, if you recall) and slaughtered for consumption when already on the verge of death. The problem with a fat tax is not the idea of trying to level the playing field between cheap, unhealthy foods and more expensive, healthier ones; the problem is that it's too superficial a solution. Fixing American obesity will require fixing American agribusiness, which may ultimately require tax-payers and consumers to spend a larger portion of their income on food, but some things (e.g., health) are worth investing in, right?
Julian| 7.31.09 @ 3:19AM
Sugar is like a drug for some people. Taxing it and using the funds to help people who want to be healthier, fund programs, and healthcare makes so much sense it's ridiculous.
Health Tax is the best term "Fat tax" is misleading, we would all pay it when we buy food that is bad for us.
A tax on junk food will discourage bad choices, show true cost, and will lessen use while using the money to promote/fund health.
It's the only option on the Healthcare debate table that has a multiplier effect.
Don't let the corn syrup lobby spin fool you.
stuart| 7.31.09 @ 8:01AM
A tax should be placed on all commenters who prefer the diminution of liberty in pursuit of a fascist agenda. Julian that will be 1,000,000,000 credits for you santimonious drivel.
MLG| 7.31.09 @ 8:58AM
So Julian and Kat, are you then conceding the point that you are too foolish to know how to properly feed yourself and your children? Are you further conceding that you are also too immature to understand and accept consequences for your actions and or inaction as the case maybe?
How sad for the both of you. The rest of us, however, do not concede either of those points and do not need 'Experts' from the Federal Government (an oxymoron for certain and a joke in there somewhere) to tell us what to eat, when and how.
All these so called 'Fat' Taxes and 'Sin' Taxes do, is promote that chasim between what the rich can afford and what the poor can afford. Oh But Wait, I forget... That is one of the pillar's of Liberalism: promote class envy whenever and wherever possible... None for Thee but All for Me.
Peter Gurney| 7.31.09 @ 1:37PM
Let’s face it, the idea of a fat tax is never going to work. The food-oholics will just switch to eating more healthy foods with lower taxes and still be just as fat if not more so then they were before. To advance the cause of the President Obama’s National Healthcare Plan we must progressively tax the clothing that the fatties ware, that should get their attention. The taxes must be progressive based on the size of their fat buts and their wallets. The larger the clothing size the higher the tax and the more expensive fashion clothing will likewise be taxed at a progressive rate. No more free rides for the Lane Bryant Plus Size porkers or the fat slobs at Casual Male; they can pay their fair share of President Obama’s National Healthcare Plan or go naked.
Peter Gurney
Knowlton Township, New Jersey
Ben| 7.31.09 @ 5:21PM
MediaCurves.com just conducted a study exploring American’s opinions regarding the proposition of a tax on fatty foods. Results showed that while 68% felt there should not be a tax placed on foods higher in fat, 76% of viewers also felt that the rise in medical costs has been moderately or highly impacted by the increase in obesity and obesity-related conditions. More in-depth results can be seen at http://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCare/J7474-FatTax/Index.cfm. Thanks.
Ben
Desi| 8.2.09 @ 4:35AM
The whole point of the "Fat tax" is not for gov't to dictate what we eat but cut health care costs!!! Billions of dollars are spend on health care every year on JUST on the obese. It has been estimated if obesity trend continue health care costs will reach 10.5 billion a year by 2040. That quote is for TX alone. Come on, obviously people "are too foolish to know how to properly feed themselves and their children?" and they" are also too immature to understand and accept consequences for their actions and or inaction as the case maybe". otherwise the problem wouldn't exist. are you too foolish to understand that this has nothing to do with rich vs poor?