Bloomberg and Patterson Should Tax Sex
www.blog.snowbeverages.com
A few days ago I posted a small “article” I wrote for this blog called, “Is “Sugar” Now the Source of All Health Problems in America?” In it I addressed the fact that taxing soda but not diet soda (which is unhealthy) or juice (which has more calories) or candy, cake, etc. is arbitrary, myopic and misleading.
A couple of days ago Crain’s ran a piece which suggested that there is apparently bipartisan opposition to the proposed soda tax in the state senate and that in NY that usually means the legislation is dead. Let’s hope so. Ding dong the … wow, there I go mentioning Ding Dongs again. Sorry, Ding Dong guys. Really.
Anyway, today, I saw two things in the news on this issue that I find to be truly remarkable:
1. The headline from an article that appeared on Reuters on Monday March 8th entitled, “Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say” has the following headline: “U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults’ calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.” Well, look out Pappa John! So now these guys are thinking about taking down pizza. What is more American than pizza?! I mean, Italian. Oh, whatever. The point is, are they really suggesting that there should be a tax on pizza (but not mac ‘n cheese or Big Mac’s or chocolate cake or, god forbid, non-light beer?….) The degree to which this is arbitrary has spun totally out of control. The lack of real science isn’t far behind.
2. In an article in today’s NY Daily News Mayor Bloomberg, in referring to the proposed soda tax, actually had the unmitigated nerve to say, “If you’re against it, you really are against the kids.” Well, I know that if I am against the war that I must hate the troops and want them all to die–the Bush administration taught me that. But I never would have known–until now–that I hate children. I have two five year old twin sons. All this time I thought I loved them but I guess I was wrong because I am against an arbitrary, ill-conceived and desperate tax on soda. (Yes, I used to like this guy, Bloomberg. I have to admit I am now waffling…)
As I said the other day, the only sense made by this proposed legislation is financial or political. David Patterson (and, I hate to say it, any other politician supporting him and this legislation) doesn’t truly care about the health of our citizens and children or they would suggest taxing Diet Soda, packed with its artificial sweeteners and chemical preservatives and other artificial ingredients that may cause cancer and may also mess with the sweetness receptors in people’s brains resulting in problems regulating weight—ironically. If Patterson or his friends care about obesity how can they possibly attack one segment of the food and beverage industry while ignoring the fact that healthy beverages like orange juice have more calories than soda, or that there are countless other food and beverage products that contain tons of sugar and/or calories that they are arbitrarily choosing to ignore, many of which provide so-called “empty calories” and little or no nutritional value?
Oh, and a quick aside about the economics: one of my favorite parts of the hypocrisy is that the government provides subsidies that leads to a lower price on the production and sale of high fructose corn syrup and now they want to go ahead and tax it back. I think—it’s getting a bit tough to follow.
But the part that I find fascinating in today’s news is the idea of now taxing pizza. Why pizza and not iced cream? Why not chocolate? And then I remembered that in Orwell’s “1984″ the government announced that the chocolate ration was being “increased” from something like 3 grams a day to 5 grams a day when in fact, the day before, the daily ration had been 7 grams. Don’t mess with the chocolate. Since when does the government get to tell American citizens which fattening foods are okay and which they aren’t allowed to eat? This desperate and ill-conceived tax program is literally starting to spill over into an attack on our civil rights and freedom. It wasn’t truly brought on by an obesity problem; it was brought on by a budget problem. If there was a budget surplus does anyone believe we would be discussing slapping an 18% tax on a commonly consumed beverage item when families are struggling financially? Of course not. If the government gets soda, and if they then get pizza…. just think about it everyone… What better way to make a lot of money and to also lower the need for useless and controversial abortions than to simply put a tax on sex! I imagine that Bloomberg probably has some statistic somewhere that says if you tax orgasms the incidence of sex and unwanted pregnancies goes down. The nookie tax is coming and Big Brother Patterson will see that it happens… Oh wait, the NY newspapers say that he may be in jail before that could happen. Don’t let him nail soda or pizza first.
–Stu Strumwasser
CEO of Refreshiliciousness
Snow Beverages, Inc.
www.blog.snowbeverages.com
Damon Canedo says:
Phentemine 375: Excess calories (without burning them off) creates excess weight, it is that simple
March 13, 2010, 10:18 amStu says:
Damon- thanks for commenting. I appreciate your point of view and I hope you’ll consider my reply with an open mind: I respectfully suggest that you are over-simplfying. Of course I agree with you that “excess calories” creates excess weight. But who said that the calories in question are necessarily “excess”? There are less calories in the beverages we make at Snow than there are in traditional soda and dramatically less calories than there are, for instance, in juice. No one is suggesting taxing orange juice. “Calories” are not necesarily somehow unhealthy. With NO calories, one would die. With too few, one might suffer unhealthy weight loss. I agree with your statement that it is “excess” calories that create weight gain. But a can or two a day of Snow would not necessarily provide any excess calories (and it happens to provide some nutritional value.) Furthermore, my objection to the proposed soda tax in not based on their alleged concern about the obesity problem in America–I share that concern. I object to the arbitrary and misleading way that they are suggesting that we should tax soda, but not diet soda and also not tax cake, candy, ice cream and a myriad of other products that contain sugar (which may or may not provide any nutritional value at all.) Why aren’t they suggesting that we tax ALL calories (or at least all calories in foods with little or no nutritional value)? Why don’t they just suggest taxing sugar itself, rather than only one single class of products made that contain it? Here’s a doozy: why don’t they tax high fructose corn syrup, or at least stop SUBSIDIZING it?? Look, let’s be candid: Americans drink as much soda as water. A tax is not going to eliminate consumption. It may reduce it a little, but it will not prompt a sweeping change in the obesity problem. It CAN’T do that if the legislation ignores all of the tons of other products with even MORE sugar that will go untaxed, or the over-arching problem of bad nutritional choices and lack of proper exercise. And that is my bigger problem with this misguided mess of legislation. While they pretend to care about people’s health (while all they really care about is desperately coming up with some revenue to plug the huge hole in the budget they created with poor governance and an economic crisis) this myopic legislation and discourse is distracting us from having a more thoughtful and serious discussion about health and obesity–one that might include true solutions. So, I could be wrong, but I just think that it ain’t as simple as just a question of “calories.” -Stu
March 13, 2010, 9:10 pmRosaline Smida says:
I definitely enjoyed reading this article.Thank you.
May 19, 2010, 3:10 am