San Francisco Mayor goes after Caffeine
Should I be surprised that one of the first stories I catch since returning has to do with San Francisco? I suppose not since they were all over the news well before I left for training...Mayor Gavin Newsome has begun pushing for additional taxes on caffeinated/sugary drinks in the fine city of San Francisco, stating that they account for tens of millions of dollars in health care costs for the city because of the obesity they cause. This is all a part of his "Shape Up San Francisco" program which began last summer with a "walking regiment..." AKA, suggested walking mandated by the government.
First off, what kind of health care system are you running in your city (on the taxpayers dollar) if its spewing out tens of millions for the obese? Is the government handing out Stacker2 or something? Maybe steps should be taken to fix the broken system and put the responsibility back onto the people rather than continually over-legislate in order to "take care" of us. I enjoy energy drinks, and I do it responsibly...why should I or ohers like me be punished twice now (once for the health care tax and then again when we buy the energy drink) because of what we choose to include in our daily life?
Mayor Newsome needs to understand that his job is to serve the people by providing the services they ask for when they vote, not play mommy & daddy as if we are all children and have no clue how to take care of ourselves. If little Johnny gets fat because he sucks down too many sodas, then his parents need to step in and fix the problem...either that or Johnny will have a life changing moment one day where he'll either decide that he wants to fix his appearance and change his lifestyle, or that he enjoys his current lifestyle and is willing to accept the social consequences of that choice.
Why do liberals always resort to taxing us when it comes to something THEY believe shouldn't be acceptable? If us conservatives ran things that way you'd better believe that we would've hit green tea and hemp shirts a long time ago...
posted by Carl Soderberg at
11:43 AM
7 Comments:
It's weird that you come back after being away for months, and the first thing you notice is a municipal issue on the West Coast. If I was trying to catch up, the first things I would notice would be, say, how Obama's now beating Hilary, how the Republicans are unprecedentedly torn, how Bush messed up on Iran, or how the Democrats in Congress are still doing nothing. Links or sources would be cool for this post, as it doesn't seem to be a top story anywhere.
I'm not really clear about what you're talking about exactly, either. So there's a tax on sodas--that's pretty straightforward. But then you talk about "suggested walking mandated by the government." Well, is it suggested or mandated? If it's the former, then why is that bad, or worse than, say, the big bad food pyramid? If it's mandated, well, then that is pretty weird (and something social progressives on both sides would flip out about).
Finally, the motivation behind the legislation can probably answer your question, "what kind of health care system are you running in your city...if its spewing out tens of millions for the obese?" The answer, unfortunately, would be "a normal one." Obese people pay into the system like anybody else, and they take out more because of the greater problems they have with heart disease, increased cholesterol, and all that. This is true for any system, private or public. As somebody who is also moderate about soda consumption, I don't plan to be happy with paying for someone else's mistakes; but the reality is that it will happen no matter what kind of health care I'll end up using. If people want to use their local government to mitigate those problems, then that's democracy.
Which leads finally to the last thing: this is a local decision, Carl. I'd have reservations about a federal soda tax, too (probably less than you would though). But if it's a local tax, then now I know not to move to SF if I want to drink lots of soda. You haven't told me if there's serious local opposition to Newsome's measures, so for now I'm left wondering why you (you're not a resident of SF, I believe?) are complaining about this in the first place.
Regardless of where and what we are taxed on and the reasons why, everyone needs to open their eyes and take note of the hard earned money the government is taking from our pockets. In Maryland, the new Democratic governor recently increased over a dozen taxes including sales tax, gas tax, income taxes and much more.
If my memory serves me correct, this country was formed because we got pissed over a 3% tax increase on tea.
Anon, context does matter. If you don't like people making that investment in their own local government, then democratically oppose that idea in your own state and city. The Framers didn't oppose taxation, they opposed taxation without representation. That's why taxes are constitutional.
Does the issue need to be on the national level in order to draw attention? If you ever listen to the radio show, youll see how they like to talk about the local issues because its entertaining. A lot of "creative" legislation shows up at that level, and for one enjoy reading/hearing about them. BTW, San Francisco is that place that is always looking to turn heads with its radical agenda and ideas, hoping that the rest of the nation follows suite...explains why a lot of the decisions coming out of that government get overturned by some level of the court system...
KD, problem with your argument, The now elected Governor (or most any other polititian) ran on a platform of no new taxes and said he would make cuts and efficiency improvements to the local government- what happen? Is it possible he lied to get elected???
I want to hear your opinion after your property tax increases 50% in only 7 years or you get your first big paycheck and 1/3 or more is taken to pay taxes.
anon,
I didn't know that, but thank you for pointing it out. Do you know how people in SF have responded to it? Have they called him out as a liar? See, I don't mind taxes, but that hasn't been what I've been defending here. I've been defending a city's right to make that decision, because the people seem to want it. If people like his taxes, then cool. If not, then I expect that the mayor will hear about it and be voted out. Otherwise would be a shame.
kd,
the people of a city should be smart enough to realize that their government, on a city level, is smart enough to listen to their government, on a national level, who is then smart enough to listen to george bush, who, in my mind, is the be all end all of right desicions. thank you, and see you in your red painted, incense burning communist lair!
Post a Comment
<< Home