State legislators should think long and hard about eliminatingthe governor's proposed penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugarybeverages, because if they do -- a likely scenario -- they willeliminate a hefty chunk of revenue that will have to be offsetelsewhere in the budget.
New taxes are not a good idea in a high-tax state like New York.But a use tax on a commodity that's not a necessity is not a blanketpenalty, and this one carries health benefits to boot.
The proposed tax on sugary beverages has drawn support as a steptoward reducing consumption and, eventually, combating obesity,especially among the young. That would pay dividends in the long runby curtailing needed health care, curbing diabetes and saving lives.
Health Commissioner Richard Daines has been among those promotingthis proposal, and talking to members of the State Legislature inparticular about the health benefits and the need to identifyanother $1 billion in budget cuts if this idea is defeated. Duringthese fiscally difficult times, that warning should gain sometraction -- but lawmakers also are worried about a new tax whenvoters already are angry about state government and an inept andinert governing body.
Daines, though, points out that 60 percent of adults and 30percent of children in New York are overweight, with obesity drivingup health care costs and reducing productivity while also demandinghigher insurance premiums and taxes for treatment. According toDaines, New Yorkers pay 80 percent of the $8 billion in annualobesity-related health care costs for Medicaid and Medicare, and theremainder in health insurance premiums.
He hopes the $1 billion a year raised by the tax will supportcritical health care services and prevent deeper cuts at a time whenthe state has to close a $9 billion deficit.
The issue is rooted in a shift nearly 30 years ago from sugars tohigh-fructose corn syrup as a beverage sweetener. The syrup, whichcame from government-subsidized corn crops, was far cheaper and,over the years, sweetened-beverage prices increased far less thanthe prices of other foods. Consumers saw them as economical andbought more, encouraging producers not only to make sweeterbeverages, but to increase bottle sizes. The evidence for that is inevery supermarket now.
Proponents say the excise tax will help close the gap betweenhealthier foods and sugary beverages with artificially low prices,eventually encouraging healthier choices. That should have an effecton the main argument now used against the tax, too -- that higherprices will cost beverage-industry jobs. Expanding the market forhealthier beverages can make that a shift, not a just a loss.
Most of us understand, at least on an intellectual level, thatAmericans have grown fatter. As we're slurping the latest, greatestand largest drinks at movie theaters and convenience stores, weshould consider that more than one in six U.S. children is obese,three times the rate in the 1970s -- and that obesity is a majorcontributor to cardiovascular disease, according to recent studies.Higher rates of Type II diabetes over the past two decades also canbe linked to higher rates of obesity, with young people nowaccounting for almost half of the new cases in some communities.
It's no secret that low-income communities are most affected bythe cost-and-consumption issue. Sugary soft drinks are available inabundance at neighborhood convenience stores and cost less thanfresh fruit and vegetables, thanks to sales tax exemptions for sodaand snack food in many states and to corn subsidies for farmers. Thepoor have little choice but to buy cheaper stuff, and buy emptycalories in the process. That's costly to them, and costly tosociety. Communities must do what they can to decrease the price andincrease the availability of healthier foods and beverages, but froma health standpoint, let alone a state-revenue one, adjusting theprice disparity to close the gap makes sense, too.
