Who would have thought all those ice cream sundaes, sodas and candy bars would be "bad" for your health? Well, it really caught me off guard too when the American Heart Association announced that, get this, all that sugar leads to obesity (WHAT?!!) which leads to heart disease (GET OUT OF TOWN!). I can't keep track of all this. Right here in none other than the ever truthful, ever reliable CW did I recently learn that it's really okay to be obese. So naturally I started increasing my intake of the aforementioned food groups. I mean, hey, don't we all want to live forever? Or at least as long as we can under whatever new health reform Pelosi-Reid-Obama bestow upon us?
Look, in all very brief and intermittent seriousness, there is little question that the American diet is somewhat inconsistent with what that Guy who designed the human digestive system had in mind for sustenance. I have done a fair amount of reading about how much better the body processses game meats, whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables as humans used to do before Al Gore invented the internet (okay, it might have been a few years before that, my memory is clouded with this sugar high). One of the consistent themes I've seen proposed is this notion that we could take a dramatic stab at reducing this trend toward Americans', uhm, "huskiness", by simply eliminating the government subsidies on corn (How do you spell "OMG!" in Iowan?). Anyway, the mindset appears to be that corn is used to fatten cattle unnaturally on feedlots (oh, but how I DO love a nicely marbled delmonico), how it supplies the corn syrup industry which all by itself accounts for 80% of unnecessary calories (I made up that statistic--feel free to insert the correct number any of you corn lobbyists who might be reading--I suspect it may be higher), and how it makes driving rather than walking a little cheaper (except when you leave that damned ethanol in your tank too long and you have to ungunk your fuel lines)--all of which contribute to facilitating our proclivity to make personal choices that lead to us become more rotund.
I think subsidizing most anything is poor governing. There are ample market forces to encourage farmers to grow corn...and if there weren't why would we need to grow it anyway? But I also read a lot about the FDA and Dept of Agriculture and how many of their policies actually encourage the kinds of practices that have tainted the very food supply they mean to keep clean. Things like NAIS (National Animal Identification System) represent an unaffordable government burden on many small organic or, "beyond organic" farmers who are committed to providing food sources that are free of the kinds of diseases found in feed lots and industrial chicken houses that require all manner of innoculations and antibiotics and to give us options in our food supply that more closely represent pre-internet diet (okay, that apparently wasn't funny the first time either) pre-industrial farming/processed food diet. It will also impact the poor sot who has this crazy notion that the nation in which he lives actually affords him the freedom to own his own milk cow or goat, maybe a pig and some chickens so he can feed his family and barter with his neighbors for items they might grow. Not so fast...they are impacted too. There's a farmer near Staunton, VA who wrote a book, "Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front" to document the battles he's had with USDA etc as he strives to raise food in humane, natural environments and in ways that exceed USDA requirements for "organic". I'll read it sometime and give you a book report.
So to summarize:
Lots of American's are fat and excess sugar is a nice, packet-sized culprit.
But, most Americans are fat because of their personal choices.
Of those choices, the government subsidizes or policy-izes many of the less healthy options from which Americans choose.
Many Americans are trying to provide healthier options but, in addition to the challenges of making themselves more vulnerable to weather fluctuations, insect infestations and natural predation, they are almost unanimously in agreement that their biggest challenge is the government.
Ultimately, we are still fat because of our personal choices.
But could we try to, maybe, level the playing field by exempting the small farmers who don't use feedlots or packed chicken houses, etc and who don't ship their goods farther than the nearest farmers market and ESPECIALLY those who just use their farms to feed their friends and family?
And couldn't we save a ton of money if we stopped subsidizing things that contribute to our less healthy choices and for which there is already a booming market?
And does anyone know of a book for brevity in writing?
CW
ReplyDeleteRight on. Won't fit in a tweet, but right on. Here's the bigger picture. Government driving any behavior through tax policy or subsidy is beyond the scope of their Constitutional mandate. The reason we had the collapse of the real estate market and the "banking crisis" was not because of too little regulation. It was because we set up a bunch of tax incentives (call them subsidies if you'd like) that artificially drove home purchases and other behaviors. It's because we set up too much regulation and allowed players to manipulate the system. Folks speculated by buying houses they didn't need and couldn't afford based upon flawed assumptions about continued double digit growth and tax savings they shouldn't, in a normal world, have expected. People should buy houses because it's a better option than renting in an unregulated, unsubsidized market . For millions, renting makes more sense than owning. Some do gooders decided home ownership was the holy grail of the "American Dream," cooked up this whacky set of tax subsidies, and now, in the words of Rev. Wright, "America's chickens have come home to roost." Mortgage interest deductibility, home equity interest deductibility, rental property exense deductibility, and other government incentives added to this mess. If we had a purely market driven economy with sensible government regulation to protect consumers, equilibrium would ensue.
Ethanol and biodiesel are boondoggles forcibly rammed down our throats without consent. Have you tried to find ethanol free fuel lately? I drive a 3/4 ton pickup and the valves rattle constantly. If I could find real gas I wouldn't buy a gallon of this crap blend. How much sense does it make to burn our food for fuel when people are hungry around the world? We're plowing up what little wetlands remain in the plains states to grow inefficient crops like corn...that's what happens when social conscience drives goofy policy. Meanwhile the Chinese have begun horizontal drilling from just outside our territorial waters and the feds won't allow us to develop the fuel being stolen by our adversaries...anybody see the absurdity here? Democrats aren't alone in their meddling, but the current mob in Washington seems intent on nagging us to death.
I have plenty to say about your high speed rail subsidies too, but I'll save that for now and get back on point with the sugar thing.
Fast forward to the current "Food Tax" fad. Now UVA has joined the cacophony advocating a sugar tax to get us off our sucrose addiction. Maybe if we let the market actually enter the healthcare debate and move to an outcomes based model for reimbursement, fat-butts like me would have to pay more for their health insurance. The problem would self correct. It wouldn't hurt either if the schools would reinstitute proper Phys Ed programs and if Mommy and Daddy would tell little Johnny to go outside and play instead of hanging out on Facebook and texting. We should all demand the government stay out of the obesity business...period.
I know I'm oversimplifying a complex matrix of issues, but the essence of the overriding problem is social engineering through carrot and stick subsidy and regulation, and that problem is truly a simple thing to identify and begin to resist.
But what do I know....I'd run for Congress, but my Congressman, Eric Cantor, actually "gets it," so I'll just stay out here and throw rocks from the weeds.
...back to work.
jts
Hey John--this post was the work of your country-kin Mudge!
ReplyDeleteAh so....solly.
ReplyDeleteI'll still tilt at your high speed choo choo windmill when time allows...
If this was Facebook, I would like this. Great post.
ReplyDeleteJohn, tax policy by its very nature drives behavior. If you tax something you get less. Subsidize something you get more. Government just wants to be in the loop, so as to intimidate and control. Ag. policy is a perfect example. What was it Reagan said (God rest his beloved soul)? The scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help".
ReplyDeleteGreg,
ReplyDeleteUnderstood...
Whether intended or via the Law of Unintended Consequences, tax policy functions as de facto regulatory policy. The problem starts when the pols decide by fiat what behaviors they wish to whip into line. Fat, bad...beta carotene, good. Driving, bad...riding the bus, good. And so on, ad infinitum. I don't need some 26 year old staffer crafting language in a tax bill based upon what he's convinced some Member should think is the best way for me to live my life. If they think adding a buck to a bag of Doritos is going to get kids off the couch and onto the playground, they're nutty.
I'm not naive enough to expect that taxes won't drive behavior. I guess where I'm heading here is that all of this accelerated nanny state tax policy is another indication that we have collectively come to value security over liberty. I'm out of step. I'll take risk. Give me liberty. I'll live with the consequences of my choices. I much prefer living as the wolf rather than the sheep.
We could also move on to policies like "hate crimes." If I put a bullet in you (and I'm pretty sure I'm skilled enough to make sure it works it's intended purpose), you're dead. It doesn't much matter whether my motivation was road rage, cheating spouses, money, or the fact I might not like the color of your nose hair (not that I know anything at all about your nose hair, Greg). I don't think the kind of crackers that drag a man to death behind a pickup because he's black are going to pause to consider the extra federal charges that will ensue via hate crimes prosecution...but we'll all feel better because we've finally done something about the problem by passing another law.