The Obama Administration is borrowing a key tenet of his “Heathcare” strategy from an infamous Minnesota initiative from the 1990’s; “Soak the Addicts Who Don’t Have Clout”.<\/p>\n
In 1998, the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross sued and won $6.1 Billion from “Big Tobacco” – which was, of course, passed on to “Big Tobacco’s” customers, aka “smokers”.<\/p>\n
But that was safe, because smoking – and smokers – were indefensible.\u00a0 So nobody defended them.<\/p>\n
Of course, the to make money, the strategy depends on having a boundless supply of people with declasse <\/em>addictions and problems – smokers, drinkers, and – as the LA Times <\/em>informs us with breathless excitement – the overweight and obese<\/a>.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s be honest: the more affluent Americans will not feel the effect of a soda tax, nor that of the inevitable tax on fast-food purchases from McDonald\u2019s, Burger King or Taco Bell…But let\u2019s play along with the Ivory Tower bigwigs and self-appointed health gurus who are advocating the tax on \u201csugary\u201d drinks as a means of off-setting the enormous costs of President Obama\u2019s back-breaking health care initiative, as well as combating bad habits. Why stop at soda? How about a tax on every calorie-laden coffee drink served at Starbucks and its competitors? After all, a vanilla bean frappuccino with whipped cream is more than 500 calories, a beverage that health researcher Mike Adams calls \u201cdessert in a cup.\u201d Throw in a scone or brownie with one of those Starbucks \u201cdesserts\u201d and a consumer is approaching, at mid-morning, the daily recommended calorie intake.<\/p>\n No knock against Starbucks, which I patronize, but it\u2019s fairly inconceivable that either Congress or nutritionists would classify that chain\u2019s offerings with the low-hanging taxable fruit of Pepsi and Coke. Taking this argument further: why aren\u2019t the revenue seekers proposing slapping a \u201csin\u201d tax on the following items that aren\u2019t at all healthy (whether organic or not): butter, cream, eggs, bacon, corned beef, mayo, Godiva and Lindt chocolates, foie gras, triple-cream Brie, the entire dessert tray at a ritzy French restaurant, Ben & Jerry\u2019s ice cream, fried clams, squid, shrimp and oysters, entire menus at Chinese restaurants (both cheap and pricey) and fresh-squeezed orange juice? And maybe a tax credit<\/em> ought to be awarded to those consumers who purchase olive oil instead of butter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To add insult to injury; not only are “sin taxes” a way for the majority to punish the minority – they don’t work<\/a>, either as revenue-generators or <\/em>as societal behavior modification:<\/p>\n The consequences of the sin tax are often the very opposite of those intended by its designers. Rather than increasing revenue, the sin tax can reduce it. Rather than discouraging what are regarded as morally questionable behaviors, the sin tax can make them more appealing. Rather than reducing what are perceived to be internal costs of the sin, the sin tax can increase them and expand them to society as a whole.<\/p>\n\n
\n