Dim-Witted Eaters Need Government Help: Taxes on Unhealthy Foods

The following interview is a fictional account inspired by an article in the July 24, 2011 New York Times--Bad Food? Tax it and Subsidize Vegetables and the scholarly report, The Potential Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes in New York State. However, my satire is looking more and more like political reality. The Harvard School of Public Health has come out with taxation schemes to combat obesity. See half of U.S. population will be obese by 2030 experts predict... Also see Plan to Tax Soda Gets a Mixed Reception.
_________________________________________________________________ 
The president has just appointed a head of the newly created federal agency, Assisting (Preferred) Races (with) Rice, Oranges, Greens and Needed Taxes, acronym--ARROGANT. A journalist, interested in the scope and goals of this new agency, interviewed him. Here is the transcript: 

Journalist: What are you doing?
Leader of ARROGANT: Congress and the president gave me powers to tax foods that cause obesity and other health problems. I’ve slapped a two-cents tax per ounce tax on soda. You won’t find a six-pack of Coke on sale for $2.09 any more. My $1.44 tax makes that Coke six-pack sell for $3.53.
Journalist: The tax almost doubles the price.
Leader of ARROGANT: That’s right. Demand is highly elastic, highly sensitive to price changes. People will purchase much less unhealthy soda. They will immediately lose weight and be healthier. I’ve also imposed a fifty-cents per serving tax on McDonalds french fries.
Journalist: A medium fries used to cost $1.79. Now it’s $2.29. That’s a 28 percent tax.
Leader of ARROGANT: It’s a bargain for the nation! We will lower consumption of soda alone by 20 percent, prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and prevent 400,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, saving $30 billion dollars.
Journalist: Those projections are based on…
Leader of ARROGANT: a study by Dr.Y. Claire Wang, an assistant professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health for the State of New York. Those numbers she gave for the state were then scaled nationally.
Journalist: Dr. Wang states in the above reference that the “health benefit and medical savings are larger among African-Americans and Hispanics than among non-Hispanic Whites. Lower income individuals are expected to accrue a disproportionately larger share of the health benefits.” The money from the tax could be “used to support education programs and infrastructure designed to promote healthy eating and active living…” (Executive summary) Is that right?
Leader of ARROGANT: That is correct.
Journalist: So you are saying that minorities and the poor are too stupid to know how to eat healthily.
Leader of ARROGANT: We would guide them to make the correct choice through school programs, advertisements, and putting subsidized produce in more available locations.
Journalist: You would put grapes instead of soda in vending machines?
Leader of ARROGANT: Yes, just like what’s already in place in Japan and Iowa. Next we will train kids to eat steamed broccoli instead of pizza.
Journalist: I’m not sure that you will be successful. What percentage of over consumption of calories comes from sugary beverages?
Leader of ARROGANT: 40 percent
Journalist: So you have addressed less than half the problem here.
Leader of ARROGANT: We are working on the rest—a tax on french fries as I mentioned earlier and taxes on doughnuts are in the works. Denmark has a saturated-fat tax starting in October. That is our next step. This is the role of government.
Journalist: I don’t recall setting the people’s diet patterns as a constitutionally prescribed function of the federal government.
Leader of ARROGANT: I represent the people. The general will is the rule of law.
Journalist: Do you have a precedent for your actions?
Leader of ARROGANT: Yes, the war on tobacco has worked. Cigarette taxes comprise about half the cost of cigarettes. Less people smoke, and the people’s health is more important than the rights of those doing the wrong thing.
Journalist: As less people smoke or drink soda, don’t the tax revenues eventually drop?
Leader of ARROGANT: Yes, but slimming people down is more important than providing the poor with subsidies on vegetables.
Journalist: So the poor will be priced out of enjoying a burger with fries and a coke and eventually get less benefits from the tax revenues.
Leader of ARROGANT: Yes, in the long run we know what’s good for them.
______________________________________________________________________________
Postscript: Your Federal government is working hard to protect you from making poor food choices. See USDA Secretary: We Must ‘Create Appropriate Transition’ for What Americans Eat here.
Those that want to research the link between obesity and fast food should read Don't Eat This Book. Fast Food and the Supersizing of America by Morgan Spurlock. See a link here. Cato's research on big government and obesity is here. Libertarian sites examine the civil rights issues connected to taking away people's food choices. The huge Cokes are not the cause. As of June, 2012, researchers have found more important factors than soda (link here).