Roz and I don't have cable, so I'm happily not up on my political attack ads. Last week's trip to Wisconsin and the necessary motel stays meant a temporary lift of the blackout, however, and the only (as luck would have it) issue ad I saw was a particularly odious one from some organization called "Americans Against Food Taxes" starring a very-angry mom. She's mad, you see, that the Gummint might make buying her family its weekly ration of pop, Doritos and Count Chocula more expensive through taxes on unhealthy food.
I should begin by saying that, on this issue, I fear the insurance companies about a million times more than I fear the government. If the private insurance system is allowed to continue, and I see no reason it won't be, I fully expect to have to log in to my carrier's website and report, daily, what I'm eating. Probably by 2020 at the latest. I also fully expect every baby born in America to be DNA tested one of these days, as a condition of their coverage. Call me paranoid. But I'm going to be right.
As far as Uncle Sam goes, I have no problem with him disincentivizing the purchase of food that we really shouldn't be eating anyway. In theory. The problem is that the burden here falls on the poor. A box of Apple Jacks and a gallon of milk is breakfast for a couple kids for a couple days, and runs about $5. It also requires exactly 30 seconds of preparation. As cheap as Quaker Oats are, they take awhile, and they're not exactly appetizing. Unless you add butter and sugar or, as I do, bananas. Either way, the cost and time goes up fast. Perhaps not by the standards of those of us with spare time, but a single mom working and going to school? Apple Jacks look real good.
The revenue from the taxes, therefore, would have to be purposed properly. It would need to pay for better healthcare for the poor, childcare, life skills classes, and so on.
Of course, we're not into helping the poor these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment