Put state on spending diet rather than impose soda tax

The new year hasn’t started yet, but Gov. Neil Abercrombie is already courting controversy for 2012.

In a recent interview, he indicated a willingness to re-consider a proposal to tax soda that generated so much ire in 2011. With a keen eye to public opinion, the governor indicated that the revenue from such a tax would only be used for "health and environmental improvements."

Though Hawaii has one of the lowest obesity rates in the country, still it has doubled in the last 15 years — making it difficult to argue against a policy that promises a reduction in waistlines.

But the best and most effective way to reduce obesity is personal responsibility. Taxing sugary drinks is simply government overreach bound to leave a bad taste in our mouths.

Let’s first dispense with the exaggerated rhetoric that surrounds soda consumption. Nutritional research suggests that soda consumption alone contributes little to the American obesity epidemic. In fact, writing recently in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and Purdue University criticized the media for exaggerating the consequences of normal soda drinking.

Other factors in American lifestyles have shown stronger links to obesity. For instance, age, genetics, lack of exercise and regular consumption of other high-calorie foods all likely play a part. But researchers have not made much progress beyond what our family doctors have been telling us for decades: Eat less, exercise more. Bulging waistlines are a consequence of our unwillingness to take this advice, and taxing sugary drinks is no substitute for a change in our lifestyle choices.

This intuition is backed up by the evidence, which indicates that taxes would barely nudge portly residents of Hawaii enough to transform them into much slimmer people. For example, recent economic research conclude that even an enormous 58 percent tax on soda would drop the average body mass by only 0.16 points — a trivial effect given that obesity is defined as a body mass index of at least 30.0.

The tax’s proponents like Gov. Abercrombie don’t want you to pay attention to these facts, and will repeatedly hammer the message that this tax is an important step to solving the state’s health problems. But if other sin taxes are any indication, the tax revenue ultimately will be diverted away from obesity-prevention programs and thrown into the general funding pot of government spending.

So here’s a bold proposal: Put government on a diet rather than invent new reasons to raise taxes on citizens whose wallets are already pinched. (That’s especially the case for the state’s poorest residents, who would be hit hardest by this tax — despite the fact that not all of them have weight problems).

This tax sends the message that individual responsibility and motivation are being replaced by government responsibility over people’s health — a sure recipe for failure.

And what other interventions and coercions would the state government try next as it becomes apparent that the promised benefits of this tax don’t surface?

Get ready for more soda taxes, more food taxes and more policies that further constrict citizen choice without improving public health.

Does anyone still wonder why government continues to disappoint us?