This page was last updated on August 22, 2011.
Feel free to sin; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 21, 2011.
As you read the subject editorial, ask yourself what the piece doesn’t mention.
This editorial is simply another BCT excursion into nanny statism. You can find previous examples below after the critique.
Since 2005, the BCT has treated us to at least 65 editorials about obesity. It appears the BCT may have moved its obesity jihad into #1 position over its smoking-on-private-property jihad (at least 57 editorials). Why? The BCT is 1) laying the foundation for more government control over our behavior simply because that’s what lefties do and 2) laying the foundation for blaming you and me when Obamacare melts down, as is Medicare.
In this editorial, the BCT appears to support fines (euphemistically referred to as “taxes”) for buying “unhealthy foods.” Allegedly, the fines would subsidize government-approved foods deemed too expensive. It won’t be long before we hear “warm and fuzzy,” survey-tested leftyspeak for the food fines. Does anyone doubt we’ll also see proposals to require “healthy food” areas in restaurants and on other private property, as we saw with smoking?
The BCT tells us, “An added benefit would be a drop in health-care costs related to poor diet and exercise, especially diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.” Not exactly. The BCT is being dishonest with us. The alleged “drop in health-care costs” is not an “added benefit,” it’s the food-fine proposal’s primary objective in an effort to save Obamacare. In any case, it’s a fool’s pursuit. The only thing that can rescue government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopolies is their repeal.
The editorial says, “One reason cigarette use in the United States has dropped since the 1960s is because of public-awareness campaigns informing people of the dangers of smoking. But higher taxes have been just as important. The stiffer the tax, the less appealing the product.” I’m sure it was because the BCT ran out of space - not, but the editorial failed to note the role of government outlawing smoking on private property. Then again, perhaps the reason the editorial didn’t mention it was it would hurt the BCT fairy tale that fining use of unapproved food “isn’t [government] telling you what to eat. It’s merely saying that if you want to eat foods that are bad for you, you have to be willing to pay the price.” You should be doing one of two things after reading this. Either your head exploded or you’re laughing hysterically. Yes, the left really believes we’re stupid enough to buy this attempted deception.
I got a kick out of “The stiffer the tax, the less appealing the product.” Have you noticed the left vacillates between relying on taxes to control behavior and claiming taxes have no effect on economic activity?
The editorial proceeds with “You have the choice of whether to start smoking. Nobody says you can’t. Likewise, nobody would deny you the opportunity to chow down on a fast-food or fast-casual meals that are loaded with fat and sugar (and the commensurate calories) and/or salt.” Really? What about those of us who could not afford the food fines? It’s like telling parents there is nothing stopping them from sending their kids to the school of their choice while making it cost-prohibitive to do so. How many families can afford to pay tuition twice, once for the private school and once via public-school taxes? Note the editorial mentioned “fast-food or fast-casual meals” but did not mention “unhealthy foods” purchased in grocery stores. Another oversight?
At the beginning I asked you to ask yourself what the editorial failed to mention. If you noticed the BCT didn’t mention the constitutionality of fining us for eating foods of our own choosing, you paid attention.
Finally, don’t be fooled into thinking the BCT is concerned about our health. For leftists, it’s all about power of the state over the individual.
Previous examples of BCT nanny statism
During the last five years alone the BCT bombarded us with at least 57 editorials to support banning smoking on private property.
At one point in 2010, salt was the enemy.
Do you remember the editorial “Silence, please?” In that editorial, the BCT lobbied for banning cell phone use on airplanes not for any flight safety or technical concerns, but simply because the editorial board found the practice annoying. The editorial concluded with, “Let’s no [sic] take any chance. Turn the FCC ban into law as soon as possible.”
“Blowing smoke” said, “… some smokers direly warned that Big Brother government would turn its attention to fast-food next. Fat chance of that happening.” Oh yeah? As I noted in my critique of that editorial, the third paragraph of “A food fight over calorie counts” (BusinessWeek; Feb 11, 2008; p. 036) read, “… and in Los Angeles there has even been a discussion of ‘food zoning’ – barring new fast-food eateries from high-obesity neighborhoods.” Guess what? On July 29, 2008, LA city council issued a one-year ban (with the option to extend the ban) on new fast-food restaurants in a 32 square-mile area of south LA.
Have you read any BCT editorials speaking out against Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s proposal to tax “sugary” drinks by an additional two cents per ounce? That proposal (similar to one in Philadelphia) would increase the price of a 16-ounce bottle by $0.32. You may recall the BCT quickly criticized Mr. Ravenstahl’s proposed tuition tax with no less than three editorials (“Brain dead,” “Talent pool,” and “Shirkers”).
Have you read any BCT editorials speaking out against a New York bill proposing “No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food?” With this editorial we know the BCT appears to support such government action.
In my critique of “Pill poppers” I wrote, “in case you missed it, it’s [the editorial] laying the foundation for the government to control our lives even more. That’s made clear by this excerpt: ‘The increase would be catastrophic for Medicare, which is already wobbly. Because baby boomers will swamp Medicare, its spending on diabetes is expected to jump from $45 billion to $171 billion and could exceed current projections for all Medicare costs.’ When it comes to a government-run healthcare monopoly, cost control will be the excuse used to control our decisions. We’ve already seen that in the ridiculous tobacco taxes (No, I don’t smoke, chew, etc.) and the proposed taxes on sugar-containing drinks.”
Do not be swayed by emotional pleas, “good intentions,” et cetera. The result of all these programs is to give power to the state by taking our individual liberty one freedom at a time.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.