By Debra J. Saunders
Sunday, November 03, 2013
San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener will always have a
special place in my heart. Braving an onslaught of puns in a wiseacre nation,
Wiener sponsored legislation to require that naked guys place a barrier between
their butts and park seats. Later, he pushed for and won a ban on public nudity
on city streets (except at events where people have grown to expect some
exhibitionism). It was a gutsy move in a city where political correctness too
often trumps common sense.
Thanks to Wiener, I haven't seen a naked guy's privates
in public for months. Thus, it is in sorrow and not in anger that I report on
Wiener's latest brainstorm, a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages, to be
placed on a future ballot. Because the revenue would go to local health and
exercise programs, Wiener may succeed where earlier soda taxes -- such as the
soda tax proposal in Richmond, Calif., rejected by 67 percent of voters --
failed.
Wiener visited the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board
Tuesday with a group of fellow do-gooders in tow. Representatives from parks,
hospitals and youth groups spoke up for the effort -- and not just because they
stand to get a bite at the anticipated $31 million in annual revenue.
They mean well, of course. "We are experiencing an
epidemic of health problems caused by sugary beverages -- including diabetes
and obesity afflicting adults, teenagers and even young children -- and we have
a responsibility to act to confront this escalating public health
challenge," Wiener said in a press release.
He's right about America's obesity epidemic. Still,
Wiener should resist the dangerous urge -- so prevalent among members of the
hallowed political class -- to punish others for not being more like the
political class. You don't see a lot of Big Gulps in City Hall. This is another
San Francisco "why can't everyone else be more like us?" tax.
And it picks an easy target -- fat people.
If Wiener wants to scold people who drink too much sugar,
fine. But it's not his job to squeeze residents and tourists because he doesn't
approve of their choice of beverage.
Who pays for this tax? Soda drinkers, of course.
Large businesses and tony restaurants won't feel much of
an impact from a soda tax, said Baylen Linnekin of the anti-regulation group
Keep Food Legal. It's the "the small-business entrepreneurs, the taco
trucks" that will pay. Linnekin believes that higher soda taxes will push
sugar lovers to buy other sweets, also high in calories.
What happens when a six-pack of beer at the neighborhood
convenience store is about the same price as soda -- maybe even cheaper? Seeing
as City Hall knows best, the answer must be: healthier people.
It's too easy for Sanctimony City to pass another nanny
law that penalizes apolitical people who have no downtown clout. Remember San
Francisco's Happy Meal ban, when the city took a swipe at McDonald's in an
alleged stand against obesity?
You would think San Francisco had a serious problem;
mayhap its streets were littered with teensy toys that smelled like french
fries.
Oh, wait. I'm wrong. San Francisco streets are littered
with trash and feces and guys who are camped out on the sidewalk. City streets
smell not of soda pop but of urine. Smart women don't wear sandals when they
have to walk downtown, because this city is filthy.
The streets are a qualify-of-life issue. When residents
and tourists drink too much soda, it doesn't really affect other taxpayers'
quality of life. (Yes, I know. If folks need medical care, that costs taxpayers
money. But if that's a city standard for butting in, then shut down all the
bars.)
When city pols say they're going to clean up the streets,
the homeless lobby fights back. But when city solons decide to put the squeeze
on soda, they know the couch potato lobby won't stand up. When bullies go after
the fat kid, he always hands over his lunch money.
No comments:
Post a Comment