If you've ever seen an old bottle of Mountain Dew, you know the beverage has a most interesting history:
Originally the name Mountain Dew was another euphemism for moonshine. In the early 40s, the first batch of Dew was made as a lemon-flavored soda to to be used as a mixer for 'shine that was too potent.
The battles between the back country folk making moonshine and the hated Federal revenuers are legendary. Now, if Nanny Statists and their Congressional allies have their way, it won't only be moonshine that the Feds are trying to tax, but the soda mixer:
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.
Sanctimonious BS is clearly one of the most harmful attitudes in our society, and it's something everyone should discourage the acceptance of.
In case you're one of those "I don't drink soda, so why should I care?" folks, realize that like attempts to ban, tax, and demonize smoking, this is just the beginning:
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
So in the guise of the "public interest," Nanny Statists like Jacobson want to impose additional costs on the MILLIONS of healthy Americans who drink alcohol and like food that tastes good (even if it is a little fatty and salty)? We can manage our eating and drinking choices just fine on our own, thank you very much. I think it would be in the "public interest" if these busy-body do-gooders would just mind their own fargin' business for a change.
As usual in matters of our increasingly nannified state, David Harsanyi wisely weighs in:
Beyond the health issues, you may want to ask yourself if it's appropriate for government to use taxes as a tool for strategic social engineering.
Isn't it counterproductive to pass one-size- fits-all punitive taxes that target the recreational ginger ale drinker along with the depraved Coca Cola abuser?
Or is it government's job to provide transparency, allowing consumers to make smart decisions, or not, about what they ingest?
Giving people the freedom to choose? How quaint.
UPDATE-- My better half e-mails to ask:
When it's voting season, politicians have the notion that people should vote for who they want and it's a persons right to vote (voters are smart). However, when in office, many tend to think they need to pass laws to regulate a persons everyday lives because they are too stupid i.e. bad food taxing.
On that note: maybe the gov't should ration our food. We stand in line for our food items on a daily basis and they decide what we eat....doesn't this sound like another gov't system that collapsed???
And Simon e-mails to connect some dots:
So Democrats are going to raise taxes on soda, snacks, cigarettes and alcohol to pay for socialized medicine.
But here is candidate Obama promising that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see ANY of their taxes raised.
I guess it's acceptable to tax us non-wealthy people when it's for our own good.
Exactly. After all, they do know what's best for the "public interest."