A Tax I Can Stomach

California's budget mess is a topic that I'd rather leave to the political chattering class:  it's way beyond the scope of this site.  But if I may briefly step up on my soapbox, I will say that as long as the two major political parties are ideologically polarized, we should consider a constitutional convention to sort out some of the structural issues that leave our state's finances in a mess year after year.  One current solution debated in Sacramento, however, has my blessing:  a tax on snack foods and beverages.

  I write this with trepidation; I'm leery of any legislative initiative that borders on "nanny state" policy.  I also question whether these monies will be applied to productive use, or if it's just a cynical ploy to plug a hole in that very leaky dike of California's revenue collection.  Finally, I doubt any politicians will even support this; California had a "sin tax" briefly in the early 1990s, which contributed to Governor Pete Wilson's unpopularity.  Poor Pete only recovered due to his pathetically timed embrace of Proposition 187,  concurrent with a reelection campaign against a candidate who bored voters into not showing up at the polls (Jerry Brown's sister, remember?).

  So why do I say just go ahead and tax snack foods and sugary beverages?  I look around me . . . and I see obese people  . . . everywhere . . . and they don't know they are obese.  So on one hand, we will have a health care crisis (some will say we already do).  We'll have to pay for our fellow citizens' poor health choices somehow.  But the prime reason why I want a new "sin tax" is that I'm for any measure that will encourage people to make better food choices.  On the other hand--well, I want both hands out of the chip bag and grasping a kitchen knife, chopping fresh ingredients.  We are disconnected and disengaged from our food, which shows up in our cravings for over-salted, over-preserved, and over-sugared snacks that sneer at us from the snack sections at convenient stores and gas stations.  Apparently our love of carbonated drinks, however, has become a right, if you're to believe the commercials on cable TV stations for which beverage trade associations have paid--just the thought of a tax has lurched Coca-Cola and their ilk into a tizzy.

  Some of this tax money could go to tax credits or grants for grocery stores and farmers' markets that open in poorer neighborhoods, which are often ravaged by health issues including obesity.  In areas like West Oakland or South Central, residents complain that they are limited to shopping at expensive convenience stores that lack fresh food choices.  Why don't we give them the opportunities to make better health decisions and leave it up to these folks to become accountable for what they put on the dinner table?  True, supermarkets carry items from cookies to cola that contribute to heart disease, diabetes, and dental problems:  but at least folks in Hunters Point and East LA will have the same building blocks for health that those in the Marina and the West Side enjoy.  Last time I went to Baltimore and saw a Whole Foods in a neighborhood that I swore would never see such a business:  with a little boost, supermarkets can succeed in places they had for decades avoided.

  Taxes and social programs, however, are not enough.  We need to make some huge course corrections as a society.  We're seeing a slow change with more community gardens and urban farms in school yards.  But change really needs to start in the home.  I sometimes watch Dr. Nancy on MSNBC, and I love the fact that she admonishes viewers to have family dinners at home, with "No Excuses."  I second her.  So to those who say, "I don't have time to cook," I say, "You do if you make time."  TV channels are chock-a-block with show on how to prepare cheap and quick meals.  Hey, TV and healthy meals:  you can kill two birds (preferably hormone-free chicken!) with one stone.