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.