The Tax Masquerade

Most of you have heard the term "nanny state." Wikipedia defines "nanny state" as a term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Its usage varies by political context, but in general it is used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect (as a nanny would protect a child), govern or control particular aspects of society. The term can refer to public health interventions and consumer protectionism that removes or controls otherwise free choices, as well as national economic and social policies (regulation and intervention) that affect large and state-favored businesses. Politically conservative groups (those that support free market principles and capitalism) object to excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options and with good reason - it's unconstitutional and goes against the essence of the Founders' spirit.

The story below taken from WLOX, an ABC affiliate in Biloxi, is a perfect example of how we as a society have dumbed down our individual freedoms and reliance on the Constitution and are now allowing our state and federal government to act as a nanny who dictates what we eat, where we go, what products we use, what cars we buy, which doctor we see, and on and on. As you read the story, keep in mind the explanation above and see if you can see the nanny's hand at work. I have italicized and a few interesting parts of the story for your ease of understanding:

BILOXI, MS (WLOX) - If your list of must-have drinks include soda, it could cost you close to 50 cents more under a proposed soda tax bill. The tax would also apply to pre-sweetened drinks like certain juices, teas, and energy drinks.
As the bill is written now, only wholesalers of sodas and sugary drinks would be taxed. But, the bill's creator, Representative John Mayo, of Clarksdale, Mississippi, says he's aware that most or all of the cost could be handed down to consumers. The idea of the tax is stirring up mixed reactions among South Mississippians.
Representative John Mayo, of Clarksdale, the man behind the bill, says the Stennis Institute is currently conducting a study on the tax and estimates it could raise anywhere from $110 and $147 Million.
Mayo says the push behind the bill is two-fold. The representative says he hopes to encourage Mississippians to make smarter, healthier choices and to pay for programs teaching people how to make healthier food choices and live healthier lives.
The representative would like to see the money go to the Department of Health, Department of Education and the Mississippi Development Authority. Mayo says the hope is to get Mississippi thinking more in terms of preventative care as opposed to being in reactionary mode.
"I hope it passes this year. It's focusing attention on what are healthy choices and what are not; it's a start." He goes on to say, "If you choose to be fat by making unhealthy choices, why should those of us who choose to be healthy pay for your obesity."

Did you hear the nanny's voice in this story? In case you didn't notice, it was prevalent throughout. Perhaps you even found yourself asking these questions as you read the story: why only certain businesses, why only certain drinks, why does the state need to be so involved in my life, why should the state have a say in what I eat and drink, why is the government involved in the health care industry, and many more.

For decades now, our state and federal governments have eased into the role of nanny as they have taxed some businesses and products more than others to encourage the average consumer to use or not use said products as is deemed politically expedient for the whims of the day. The problem with such selective government endorsements is that all of the products are legal and hold equal standing under the law. Such "sin" taxes masquerade as concern, but is essentially legal product discrimination authorized by the government.

So why do we allow certain industries to be taxed more than others? Why is it acceptable to tax alcohol more than milk? Why is it fine to tax cigarettes more than chewing gum? Why should we tax sodas more than Grandma's fried chicken or Momma's chocolate pie? Heck, why don't we tax the dinner-on-the-grounds at the churches or the family holiday feast?

In 1961, Ronald Reagan made a recording aimed at speaking against socialized medicine. He said, "...back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it..."

I would add that most people are just as reluctant to oppose efforts to curtail the use of socially questionable products, i.e. cigarettes, alcohol, and now sodas and sugary foods, even when you raise taxes. It has become easy to disguise public health care and obesity concerns with the unconstitutional singling out of legal products and businesses while imposing big government taxation, essentially creating the nanny state. And once the nanny state becomes the norm, our American way of life as defined by the Constitution erodes and soon we will no longer recognize our American existence, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - freedom of individual choice.

It's time we unmask the debates of our day and see the realities at hand. Selectively taxing legal products under the guise of public health is a slippery slope that could result in the loss of much more than just a few cents here or there. We must be diligent to assess these and other issues as we continue to perfect our Republic.