Will Rosa DeLauro make the National Soda Tax a Reality?

We tax other public bads, tabacco products, alcohol and we do so punitively without guilt or pity for even the most highly addicted. Well, I can tell you, I know some soda addicts. And I would not feel too bad if a tax interfered with their addiction. Heck, it might even cure them. And, if they do remain overweight, addicted, sick, and tired and have to pay an increased price for their fix, I will still not pity them. The revenue brought into the government would make a huge impact on public health presumably through alleviating the crippling costs to society of diabetes and obesity-related health problems. Soda drinkers or not, most Americans need to improve their health. The Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act (SWEET), which was introduced in August 2014 by Rosa DeLauro, (Democrat- CT, http://delauro.house.gov/), calls for a tax of one cent per teaspoon of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or caloric sweetener.

When Bloomberg proposed the New York City ban on sodas in certain over-sized, let's face it, HUGE portions, I was unsupportive because there is some element of freedom on the side of both the seller and the consumer. (See The New York City Soda Debate June 2012 ). The ban on large serving sizes seemed like an afftront to our sense of freedom and pushed the limits of just how much government regulation of business can become interference. A tax is across the board whether borne by the manufacturer or the consumer is fair and accomplishes significantly more.

Right now, we are seeing a lot of criticism of the calorie count that Obamacare is imposing on chain restaurants similar to the New York law that has been  in effect since 2008. I rely on those calorie counts. I really like and appreciate them because I find the more information the better. Some of the current findings seem to indicate the healthy become healthier but many of those who do not care what they eat do not care about calories regardless of the bold list of calories on boards and menus right in front of their faces when they order. I still remain in favor and firmly believe quite a few people are in fact discouraged from the highest calorie foods despite also and importantly believing the quality of the calorie (i.e. what comprises it) is a much more important issue. But the naysayers are out in full force and movie theatres and pizzerias are haggling for exemptions. But, if the same naysayers argue that the tax will not reduce consumption, the issues are different. We have very effectively taxed alcohol and cigarettes and regardless of the actual consumption data (which indicate huge drops in tobacco use) the revenues to the government justify the burden.

The biggest distinguishing factor is the proposed tax which some (sometimes including me) would argue targets low-income soda drinkers really is fair to all consumers. And, bringing in money for education trumps the Bloomberg proposal which merely aimed to discourage sales of "big gulps" while anyone can just buy two or three of the permissible size and there is no extra benefit to government. And it differs from the provision of information like the calorie count in New York law or in the provision sec 4205 of the PPACA ("Obamacare") by actually making it more costly to the consumer.

Economically, supply and demand should dictate some decrease in consumption when the price is increased. However, addiction can trump supply and demand. Either way, to me, the benefit of government revenue and the possibility that even a single person ditch soda because of the tax, the tax is a step in the right direction. Let's do candy next.