-
Nanny State Watch: California Soda Tax Shelved by Legislative Committee
Well, technically the legislation is still alive.A proposed California law to tax sodas, sweet teas, sports drinks and other sugary beverages was shelved today by an Assembly committee.
Assembly Bill 669 was placed on hold in a file for bills with monetary implications. No vote was taken, so the bill technically remains alive, but the author’s office conceded that it is unlikely to advance.
Assemblyman Bill Monning, who crafted the measure, said the committee will not move AB 669 to the Assembly floor unless it can win a two-thirds majority vote there — and, so far, that is not the case. Republicans adamantly have opposed any new tax.
“I would acknowledge that it’s an uphill struggle,” said Monning, D-Carmel.
Monning crafted AB 669 to generate revenue for obesity prevention activities and programs.
The measure would slap sugar drinks distributed in California with an excise tax of one penny per fluid ounce.
There is NO WAY any Republicans in the California Legislature would ever vote for this POS law. And, remember that in California in order to raise taxes you need a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
But, it will remain alive to become a “JUICE BILL” for the California Democrats in order to raise money for their 2012 re-election campaigns. I can see those invites to campaign events goin gout to all of those large soda companies now.
Opponents claim that AB 669 could harm the beverage industry and that decisions about consumption of sugary drinks are a matter of individual responsibility and parental authority.
-
Nanny State Watch: California Soda Tax Would Raise $1.7 Billion for Schools and Obesity Programs – Soda Has Become the New Tobacco
More nanny state taxes from California.A study released Thursday estimates that a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary sodas and other sweetened drinks would return $233 per student to California classrooms and fund childhood obesity prevention initiatives.
“The science linking sugary drinks to the obesity epidemic is rock solid,” said study author Harold Goldstein, with the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who is a leading proponent behind the largely successful removal of junk food and sodas from school vending machines and cafeterias. “It’s time to make sure that the cost of these beverages includes the social cost of the harm they are doing.”
The study is based on AB 669 by Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Carmel, which would raise $1.7 billion statewide every year and send 85 percent of that to schools and local agencies and 15 percent to state-run anti-obesity programs.
At a penny an ounce, Californians would need to buy the equivalent of 14 billion 12-ounce cans of soda, an average of a little more than a can a day for every man, woman and child in the state.
And, get this quote: “Soda has become the new tobacco.”
I mean how stupid is this.
“Soda has become the new tobacco,” said Supervisor John Gioia, of Richmond. “It took us a while to get to the point where we linked the negative health implications of tobacco on public health, and we know that the taxes on cigarettes are working to reduce smoking.”
A soda tax — applied to all beverages with added sugar and fructose corn syrup — has been debated for years.
Don’t these fools understand that the economy cannot sustain any more taxes for their nanny state redistribution schemes? And, why should soda drinks redistribute the costs of their purchases to fund school obesity programs.
Damn, just kick the soda machines out of the schools.
And, what about personal responsibility?
It’s a bad idea, countered said Jon Coupal, with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Soda drinkers vastly outnumber smokers, a dwindling population whose ostracized members are accustomed to paying cigarette taxes, he said.
“It’s the stupidest thing to come down the pike,” Coupal said. “Why are we singling out this form of carbohydrate for taxation? What’s next? A bread tax? A pizza tax? At the end of the day, this effort is a combination of bad fiscal policy with nannyism in government.”
Classroom dollars and soda consumption have no ties, said Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Executive Director Kris Hunt.
“It’s another case of ballot-box budgeting that doesn’t make any sense,” Hunt said.
The only reassuring aspect of this tax is that the proponents will need a 2/3rds vote of the California Legislature, plus the Governor’s signature. I doubt any Republicans will vote for this proposal.
So, if the nanny state soda jerks want to tax us, they will have to gather signatures and qualify an initiative for the ballot. I doubt if California voters, in this economy, will be voting themselves any more taxes – obesity or not.
-
Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care Reform?
How does drinking soda relate to childhood obesity? Richard F. Daines, M.D., New York State’s Health Commissioner, explains why more milk consumption and a tax on sugar based soda are better for kids’ health.There will have to be a helluva lot more soda consumed to pay for Obamacare.
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.
Reducing consumption of sugary drinks will certainly help obesity and dental health. However, I really cannot foresee any beverage tax coming anywhere close to paying for ANY socialized universal health care system the way President Obama has envisioned.
To think so, is just plain stupid. But, you know bureaucrats and big government folks – like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama.
Pretty soon, the government will attempt to restrict the amount of calories an American can consume a day since everyone will be paying for government run health care. You know, less calories, more health, less death – more years to pay taxes to the state.
It is all good, right?
Technorati Tags: Soda Tax, Obamacare, Socialized Medicine