April 21, 2004

WHO?

Here it comes. According to the Financial Times, WHO (the World Health Organization) is continuing its call on governments to consider using taxes in order to fight obesity.

In the final version of its draft global strategy on diet, physical activity and health, the WHO suggests governments should use fiscal measures to discourage consumption of too much sugar, salt and saturated fat. It stops short, however, of advocating specific "fat taxes" or subsidies for healthy foods.

This is kind of like taxing tobacco. A socialist "well meaning" government taxes a "sin" item in order to raise the price of said item thus causing less people to buy it (or so the theory goes). However, the government that levies this "sin" tax then becomes addicted to this new source of revenue. Ironic, isn't it?

Not only that, but I don't think it's a problem that governments (particularly the US Federal Government) should be worrying themselves with. Oh wait...Congress has pretty much written-off the Constitution, so what does it matter?

Speaking of which...Congress has been weighing in on the issue. You have two sides here: One side says that it's a matter of public concern that something should be done. The other side (mainly Republicans) says that we should block lawsuits in Federal AND state courts brought against food related industries. Which side is right? Neither.

I suggest you head over and read an article by Michael Krauss and Robert Levy at CATO.org entitled "Too Fat: Federal Powers Need a Constitutional Diet"

Two points are made clear in their article:

First, obesity is a private, not public, health problem. The term "public," if it is to have any substantive content, cannot be used to describe all health problems that affect lots of people. Instead, "public" should refer only to those cases requiring collective action, i.e., where individual harms cannot be redressed without a general societal solution.

Second, not every national problem is necessarily a problem for Washington to "solve." The cost of our overweight tort system is indeed a national ailment. When lawsuit-related costs explode, proposals for reform are never far behind—especially with Election Day on the horizon. Thus, we have been deluged by congressional schemes, like Keller's bill to protect the food industry, that enlist the federal government in the battle against confiscatory state tort laws. But no matter how worthwhile the objective may be, if there is no constitutional authority for pursuing it, then the Constitution demands that the federal government step aside.

There's that word "Constitution" again.

I, of course, have to also post the best line from the entire article which transcends so many other issues besides the obesity issue:

Ronald Reagan once noted that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. Similarly, a Commerce Clause broad enough to solve every national problem is too broad not to be abused.

Yes indeed.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

Conversely, w now wants to spend our tax money to bribe...er, "encourage" troops from other countries to join the illegal invasion of Iraq. If Gulf War II is such a great idea, why should we have to pay other countries to join in the fun?

Posted by: The Token Librul at April 21, 2004 06:26 PM

To easy. Will pass on this one Blake.

Posted by: gunner at April 21, 2004 10:30 PM

Boy, you sure put me in my place. How can I possibly respond to such a literate, articulate attack as that? I probably look French, too, don't I?
And why will we need a draft with all the fire-breathing young cancervative warmongers out there blogging their brains out? C'mon, guys, pick up a rifle and serve your country fighting terists in Iraq. That is why we're there, isn't it? To keep the terists from coming here? Or was it to get the WMDs? Or was it to punish Saddam for helping with 9-11? Or was it to free the Iraqi people? Or was it because Saddam was a very bad man? Surely Spawn Hannity can raise a regiment of volunteers to go and fix things.
I can't keep all the neverending reasons straight over the past year, but then I'm old and past my prime. You don't want more attacks on the US, do you? Now's your chance to make us safe.

Posted by: The Token Librul at April 22, 2004 01:43 AM