President Obama has tapped Dr. Thomas Frieden, the New York City health commissioner, as the new director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But even before returning to the federal government – he previously worked at the CDC – Dr. Frieden is influencing Congress. Earlier this year, he co-authored a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that championed the idea of a soda tax.
Back in April, I predicted that cash-starved governments would consider the soda tax, arguing that Coke and Pepsi are bad for people.
A good prediction: earlier this week, the Senate Finance committee announced that it’s considering a tax on “sugar-sweetened beverages” to finance the new health-care overhaul.
Even if this Congressional proposal fizzles out, Dr. Frieden has helped shift our language. Gone is the talk of soda; instead, politicians discuss “sugar-sweetened beverages.” Slate’s William Saletan notes that this is Dr. Frieden’s biggest contribution:
Frieden is the world’s most ambitious innovator in redefining unhealthy foods as not really food. By rhetorically pushing these items out of the category of sustenance, he’s paving the way for more aggressive regulation of what you eat…
I detest trans fats, soda, and excess salt. But let’s be clear about what’s going on: We’re recategorizing things so we can get away with aggressively regulating them.
Regulate and, yes, tax them.
10 responses so far
1 Tenek // May 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Slippery slope notwithstanding, it does give you the opportunity to lower your own tax bill. *shrug*
2 Bulldoglover100 // May 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm
All that matters to some is the ability to whine. Lower the tax bill??? Heaven forbid, then Obama gets credit…instead lets scream NO NO NO even if it is a good thing! Thats the ticket to the wilderness! All Aboard! The Stupid Express is leaving reality!
3 Dr. Tesla // May 22, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Did David Frum green light this column? I thought the New Majority was all about higher taxes.
4 dn6939a // May 23, 2009 at 7:34 am
It started with sugar tax, then a stamp tax, then a tea tax… once again the government wants to to find ways to tax us to the breaking point.
5 Churl // May 23, 2009 at 9:49 am
Tenek, yes, the proposal does give you the opportunity to avoid taxes by giving up something that you have previously enjoyed.
“Always look on the bright side of life”
6 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 10:28 am
Tenek: You wouldn’t be “lowering” your tax bill. You would be keeping your tax bill from rising higher.
Having said that, I haven’t seen any good proposals from my fellow conservatives as to how they would lower taxes with entitlements soaring. I won’t believe they’re serious until they explain what they plan to do about the rising cost of Medicare, for example.
7 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Pardon me, but this is petty stuff in light of current circumstances.
Go ahead. Raise taxes on alcohol (which I drink regularly), sugary drinks (which I don’t drink), tobacco (nope), gambling (nope) and whatever else is in no way linked to our good health or survival. We can then CHOOSE if we wish to continue imbibing.
Bottom line, we have to pay for the excesses of Bush admin and Obama’s agenda somehow, better this s**t than raising taxes that are completely beyond my control.
Reality rules: gone are the days when petty, life-choice taxes are worthy of overt, partisan scrutiny. Get a grip.
8 ModerateGal // May 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I don’t get the disconnect here. I keep seeing posts about how fatties should pay more for their bad choices when it comes to health care, but now that this proposal arises, there is complaining about it. That makes no sense to me.
9 midcon // May 23, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Yeah, David, ktward is on the money here. In the grand scheme of things, charging more for soda to pay for health care seems to be a non-negative (a positive) to me. And considering the excesses in many areas of our society is a little regulation such a bad thing? Lot’s of folks whose investments and homes are worth a lot less now might just be in the mood for a little regulation.
10 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Now hold on a sec, midcon, (and here comes your payback for thwarting my barker13 efforts
…
Seriously though, taxation and regulation are two very different instruments: I’m all for both taxing and regulating alcohol and tobacco and gambling (as already exists) … but regulating sugary (HFCS specifically) drinks? Not so much. Go ahead and tax ‘em, but we don’t need regs there. I have my own opinion, of course, but scientifically the jury’s still out and it comes a little too close to Big Brother for my comfort.
Hey, I likes me my gummy bears. Tax ‘em? Sure, if that helps in a larger, societal sense. But regulate ‘em? Over my dead body.
You must log in to post a comment.