POP GOES THE GOVERNMENT

It's been a bleak week in Washington. Forget the stagnant economy, stifling unemployment, the war in Iraq and increasing dissatisfaction with the Obama administration; this item is serious business.

Earlier in the week Councilwoman Mary Cheh proposed a tax in the District on sales of all sugary soda pop in order, she says, to help the City fight rampant obesity with the anticipated tax revenue, targeted at $16m, to be allocated at $6.5m for healthy school lunch programs, and $9.5m for anti-obesity programs. Personally, I think it's a great plan. According to the CDC, one in every five Washingtonians is "dangerously"overweight. Cheh states, "It's particularly dramatic among children." Referring to hypertension and diabetes, Ms Cheh says, "Doctors are telling us we're seeing all sorts of new ailments in children that we would normally see in adults." The proposed tax would be 1 cent per ounce of soda pop sold, which doesn't seem unrealistic, and the anticipated outcome would be a decrease in sales of obesity-contributing soda pop, and an increase in healthy school lunches and physical fitness.

Hang on though, enter the "Pop Police" in the form of Coca-Cola and Pepsi riding into a City Council meeting on Friday spewing anti-legislation nonsense such as, "Now is not the time to pass a regressive and discriminatory tax; it will push businesses out of the District". Thank you, Coca-Cola spokesman. Another statement in said meeting reported by The Washington Examiner was, "the tax will punish poor families from whom soft drinks are a cheap alternative."Oh dear, regression, discrimination, business fleeing the City in droves, and deprivation of the poor. Let the spin cycle begin.

My question is, where was all this righteous indignation when the PACT Act was signed into law without opposition earlier this year? Never heard of the P(revent) A(ll) C(igarette) T(rafficking) Act? In a nutshell, it prohibits the shipment of all tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco via the United States Postal Service. If you're not a smoker, it probably means nothing, but if, like me, you chose to smoke, it means that we can no longer purchase tobacco products online from a sovereign Native American government, thus circumventing the $3.75 tax per pack of cigarettes. It means that adults (and I do mean adults; these vendors do check) who have the cash, and are fully aware of the risks of smoking, have no alternative but to pay the exorbitant taxes imposed on tobacco. Obviously, my letter of protest to my Senator and Congressman had no effect on the outcome on the final vote.

So, why all the fuss over a 12 cent-per can soda pop tax? The amount is not excessive (the consumer would have to purchase over 30 cans of pop to equal the taxes I pay one one pack of cigarettes), the intent is good, there are healthy, inexpensive alternatives to soda pop, and it appears the tax revenue will be put to good and frankly necessary use. As always, the answer is revenue. Unfortunately, I think the D.C. Government may lose their battle against the soda pop giants, just as, in the case of the PACT Act, the Native Americans lost their battle against the United States government. Again.

MICHELLE OBAMA'S WEIGHTY ISSUE

I don't normally write about politics because if I'm honest, I know only enough about it to be dangerous. Lifestyle commentary is more to my liking, and fortunately, Michelle Obama has given me a topic on which to dip my foot into politics and have a jolly good rant at the same time.

The First Lady has launched a campaign against obesity in general, and childhood obesity in particular and, while its an admirable undertaking, I think it's doomed from the start. Like many unhealthy and potentially dangerous activities human beings engage in (drinking smoking, unprotected sex....) obesity is a lifestyle choice and telling an overweight person they're more likely to suffer heart disease as a result of their foul feeding is like telling me smoking causes cancer. Thanks Ma'am, we've already sorted that one out. The First Lady reckons childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportions, a fact I don't dispute, but, what exactly is her plan? The Surgeon General's report lists the following very elementary points:

• Requiring students from pre-kindergarten to grade 12 to take physical education.

• Requiring child care providers to offer at least 60 minutes of physical activity per day.

• Requiring schools to develop comprehensive wellness plans that include policies to offer kids more nutritious lunches.

While I don't suffer from an obesity problem, I do take exception to the First Lady, who has a personal trainer, a dietitian, a nutritionist, a professional chef. and access to the healthiest foods available attempting to preach to the choir a lifestyle choice, be it good, bad or indifferent. What's more irritating to me is that Mrs Obama has, to my knowledge, failed to make any mention about how the economic downturn has led to many Americans being forced to give up healthier eating in exchange for less expensive options. If I only have $1.25 in my wallet, I can't afford a bag of "organic" carrots, but I can fill myself up pretty well on a box of unhealthy macaroni & cheese.

I'm sorry Mrs Obama, its a worthy and admirable course of action, but attempting to legislate personal behavior is a waste of your valuable time and has slim hopes of success. That pun is intended, by the way.