BENEVOLENT TAXATION
Coming Soon: The Fat Tax
It’s on.
The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention just released a new study. Americans, say the CDC, face a
new epidemic—fat people.
The CDC calls nearly 18% of
Americans "obese," meaning that nearly one in five of us weighs more
than 30% above the ideal. From 1991 to 1998, says Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan,
director of the CDC, "We had a 50% increase in obesity in all age groups
and in all ethnic groups. We’ve had a steady increase throughout the 20th
century, but this a remarkably quick upturn....We don’t have a simple answer
why." Gee, I dunno, maybe people are, like, eating a lot.
But if one defines
"fat" as being above the ideal, but less than 30% overweight, this
expands the fat pool considerably. Under this more generous definition of
overweight, a Tufts University study found 63% of men and 55% of women fat.
Shocking!
One newspaper editorial, calling
the results a "public health crisis," condescendingly said, "So,
as soon as you finish this paper, lace up your shoes and go out there and walk
as if your life depended on it. It does."
Does this pattern sound familiar?
First, we call something in which Americans voluntarily engage, whether smoking
cigarettes or purchasing handguns, a "public health crisis." Then,
Congress holds hearings to explore "alternatives" or
"solutions." Next, we get regulation. Finally, Clinton declares
Halloween trick-or-treating a national disaster, triggering the release of FEMA
funds to distressed neighborhoods.
Don’t laugh. Yale University
Professor Kelly D. Brownell suggests taxing unhealthful foods. According
to Brownell, Americans are being seduced by "our toxic food
environment," which offers up a "diet that is high in fat, high in
calories, delicious, widely available and low in cost." He recommends
policies that would subsidize healthy foods like fruits and vegetables, while
taxing "unhealthy" foods such as those high in fat and cholesterol. He
proposed channeling the proceeds into nutrition education and public exercise
programs.
A "Twinkie tax," says
Brownell, would encourage people to make healthier eating choices. "As a
culture, we get upset about Joe Camel, yet we tolerate our children seeing
10,000 commercials a year that promote foods that are every bit as
unhealthy."
Hey, why not? After all, the
government tells us that nearly 400,000 people die prematurely from cigarette
smoking. To get this number, the government simply "credits"
cigarettes with a death if the deceased smoked, no matter the decedent’s age,
weight, or lifestyle. So if a ninety-seven-year-old guy dies in his sleep, but
paramedics find a pack of Winstons on the night stand, make it 400,001.
Now the CDC tells us that almost
as many die from heart disease, a condition caused or exacerbated by an
unhealthful diet. In short, McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s kill. So
attorneys general, start your lawsuits! Why not a class action lawsuit against
C&H Pure Cane Sugar? After all, these manufacturers probably knew that sugar
rots teeth and provides little nutritional value, yet they nevertheless
continued distributing the product without warning labels. Evil personified!
Oh, sure, some killjoy will
remind us that Americans live longer and better than ever, and that, sooner or
later, people die. From something. But such cynicism cannot stop the
tofu-eating, tree-hugging, anti-smoking,
I-can-look-out-for-your-health-better-than-you-can zealots who now have a new
freedom-eroding cause—slimming down fat people.
Somewhere, actor-director Rob
Reiner trembles. He, after all, spearheaded a California proposition that placed
a 50-cent tax on cigarettes. The portly Reiner, who seems quite capable of
getting the best table at Fatburger’s, could face a serious tax liability. But
will Reiner, a rich man, suffer? No, a fat-tax, like the one on cigarettes,
would fall directly on the shoulders of those least capable of affording it—poor
people. Studies show the poor more likely than the rich to eat an unhealthful
diet, and therefore they comprise a disproportionate number of the obese. But,
then, this is for their own good, right?
Hillary Clinton tells us "it
takes a village." President Clinton, however, recently lectured those who
dislike him, and thus refuse to support Al Gore for President. "I don’t
think mature people," said Clinton, "hold one person responsible for
another person’s conduct, do you?" Well, yes. For "mature
people" hold gun manufacturers responsible for the thug who kills, and hold
cigarette manufacturers responsible for those who smoke despite warning labels.
And now, "mature people" assault the eating habits of others.
Is obesity harmless? Obviously
not. But do we ask too much by allowing people to govern their own behavior?
So the "it takes a
village" people carry on, with attorneys general, politicians, academics,
and regulators happily marching along. As somebody once put it, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.
And that’s sufficient."