|Senator Eddie Lucio (D)|
So my question is. If you want to try to play big brother and tell us not to consume drinks that make us fat, why do you tax drinks that are supposed to keep us from getting fat? It just doesn't make any sense. If this ridiculous tax would go through, chances are slim to none that it will(ha ha made a funny), it would tax drinks like diet soda, vitamin waters, sports drinks, green teas, diet supplements and just about everything else except for plain water. Senator Lucio throws around some pretty impressive numbers, $4 billion over the course of the 2012-13 biennium, saying that this one cent tax on every ounce of soft drink sold is a solution to the budget mess. Hold on hold on. A fat tax on both fat and skinny people is a solution for the budget mess? Give me a break.This is not fair if you ask me and this coming from a fat guy. How about trying to cut unnecessary spending, how about getting rid of unmandated programs, you know things that are nice to have but are not necessary and are only making it harder to balance the budget. Why is it that Democrats find it easy to tax the people when they want more money? Why do they find it so easy to intrude not only in our lives but in our pockets every time they find themselves not being able to afford something? Is taking someone else's money the best way to solve money problems? I think not.
But lets give Lucio the benefit of the doubt and take a look at his reasoning. In a press release dated March 2, 2011 Lucio states "Not only would a bill like this raise revenue that could go to healthcare and education, it would help us save money in the long run by cutting expenses associated with health issues like obesity and diabetes." I'm a little confused here. How can taxing both fat and skinny people cut expenses associated with health issues like obesity and diabetes. From the outside looking in, it seems you would only be making money off of obesity and diabetes if people continued to consume $4 billion dollars worth of taxed soft drinks.
But wait there is more. The press release then states: "According to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a meaningful soda tax would lead to a decrease in sweetened beverage consumption, and that in turn is going to lead to less weight gain per year and lower rates of obesity both among children and adults." Hold on, this takes me back to my previous point. This says a tax would lead to a decrease in consumption. If that's the case how can you claim to make $4 billion dollars if your goal is to decrease the consumption of these drinks. The math just doesn't make any sense. They tell you they can raise $4 billion dollars because people drink so many soft drinks but tell you that the purpose of this bill is to keep people from drinking so many soft drinks. So what is it then Senator Lucio? To drink or not to drink? Now that is the question.
Lets break it down a little more. The quote says it would lead to less weight gain per year and lower rates of obesity. How is taxing diet or zero calorie drinks going to accomplish that? Once again, we are told the purpose for the bill yet the bill contradicts that very purpose.
Let's step back and look at this from a business point of view. You can't make your projected sales revenue if you plan to cut sales. Any person with half a brain can figure that out. Democrats need to stop wasting our time with these ridiculous ideas and get to work on real solutions. Taxing hard working Americans over and over is only going to leave us with less in our pockets to provide for our families. Why is our government spending so much of our money? The government needs to do what the rest of us are doing. They need to cut back on things they can't afford.