Taxation for the modification of behavior. Is it constitutional?

Congress is currently discussing a bill that would increase taxes on items such as fast food, soda pop and salty snacks. Senate leaders are also considering additional federal taxes on other sugary drinks to help pay for President Barack Obama’s proposal for the nation’s new health care system.

According to the Senate Finance Committee, the taxes would pay for only a fraction of the new health care plan estimated to cost $1.2 trillion dollars. Supporters of the new tax cite research stating consuming sugar sweetened drinks like soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks, and ready to drink teas can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They also argue the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs.

Michael Jacobson, Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply and is something the government should discourage the consumption of.”

An article by the Associated Press stated several senators on the Finance committee, including top Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, have said they oppose the proposal.

This seems to be the general consensus of Iowa conservatives currently serving in the house and senate. Conservative representatives to the state of Iowa have spoken clearly; our government’s fiscal shortfalls should be addressed with reduced spending, not increased taxes.

The trend towards “sin taxes” is extremely frightening when you couple together other steps recently taken by the government. One example is the $1.01 tax increase per pack of cigarettes that went into effect the first of April. According to the congressional budget, a 10 percent increase on tobacco products results in roughly four percent decrease in tobacco sells. While this bill increased taxes by 156 percent, the overall impact will cause state government to suffer a sharp decline in revenue previously obtained through the purchase of tobacco products.

Government officials stated if the new tax makes smoking unaffordable, then they are doing the public a service. That same justification can be used to implement new taxes on foods, or any activities, our government deems unhealthy.

What’s next? Are milk, butter and sugar going to be taxed because they might cause high cholesterol, or could be used to make a dessert causing you to be obese? Is red meat going to be taxed because it might cause health issues? Is your T.V. time going to be taxed because you could be outside exercising?

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly sets boundaries for the generation of taxes, as well as what said taxes can be allocated for. Nowhere in our Constitution is it stated, or even implied, the government has the authority to levy taxes designed to modify social behavior. Sit back and think for a second – frightening, is it not. Let the “sin taxes” begin.