Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

David Leonhardt summarizes well the case for a soda tax (“The
Battle Over Taxing Soda,” Economic Scene column, May 19). Two more
arguments add support.

First, since obesity imposes a higher burden on the poor than on the
well-off, the benefits that reduced soda consumption brings will benefit
the poor more, a fair outcome. Second, the lower price of sweetened
beverages compared with healthier foods results from taxpayer subsidies
to agribusinesses. Thus, a soda tax helps to discourage the unhealthy
choices these payments have promoted.

In the longer run, the price of giving food, alcohol and tobacco
companies veto power over health-related tax policies is increasing
rates of diabetes, heart disease and cancer and the costs these diseases
impose on our health care system.

Nicholas Freudenberg
New York, May 20, 2010

The writer is a professor of public health at City
University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter
College.

Note from KBJ: This is paternalism, pure and simple. The letter writer doesn't trust adults to make decisions for themselves. He knows better than they do what is good for them. I'm sure the letter writer does things that are not in his interest. Would he like the government to tax these activities as a way of deterring him from performing them?

Note 2 from KBJ: The progressive agenda is paternalistic. Ordinary people are deemed incompetent to make decisions for themselves. They must be coerced and manipulated into making decisions that progressives think are best for them. This is a stark difference between conservatives and progressives. The former actually believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility; the latter merely pay lip service to these things.