Monday, August 4, 2014

Rep. Rosa DeLauro Bill

How far will a politician go to get herself some publicity?  How much freedom must Americans lose in order to give a politician 15 minutes of fame?

Is there any end to the decision making process that politicians wish to take from citizens in this country?

Is this "nanny state" on steroids?

When the government has an opinion, it has the legal authority to impose its opinion, which is why our founding fathers sought to limit its power.  Self serving, short terms politicians will say or do anything to gain votes.

I want to decide, for myself, what I wish to eat or drink.

-Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced this week the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax (SWEET Act), which aims to institute a tax of one cent per teaspoon – 4.2 grams - of sugar, high fructose corn syrup or caloric sweetener.
The measure (HB 5279), introduced Wednesday says, “A 20-ounce bottle of soda contains about 16 teaspoons of sugars. Yet, the American Heart Association recommends that Americans consume no more than six to nine teaspoons of sugar per day."
Even though the manufacturers’ of the sweet drinks are targeted to pay the tax, the text of the bill itself notes that the goal is to reduce public consumption through a price increase.
This Act is intended to discourage excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by increasing the price of these products and by creating a dedicated revenue source for programs and research designed to reduce the human and economic costs of diabetes, obesity, dental caries, and other diet-related health conditions in priority populations,” the measure says.
DeLauro had earlier discussed the proposal while she was crafting it.
During a video presentation for The National Soda Summit in June DeLauro said, “It is long past time that we pass and support policies that work to our better health instead. With that in mind I’m working on legislation right now to tax sugar-sweetened drinks, like sodas, in a way that reflects the serious damage they are doing to our health.”

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

gotta say I support this one, drinking sugar water is so bad for you, esp when you are not taking in other protiens and vegetables like you likely wood in a meal that has some sugar in it.

soda causes cancer along with other diseases. you wanna fight for freedom -- I'm absolutely or freedom. but this is like saying -- give us back our cigarette smoking in hospitals and our leaded gasoline -

I'd say quit the soda - drink water and tea - and you'll be so much healthier to fight for all the other freedoms that really matter. and there are plenty and they are under threat.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916103646.htm

Anonymous said...

OT
Missing 6 year old girl, family did not report her for a whole day it seems.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Janice-Wright-missing-girl-bremerton-269829531.html

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Buckley said...

I don't support government attempting to reduce our consumption of something by taxing it. Though if we are going to continue to run deficits and pay Medicaid at current levels, this might be a way to pay for it if earmarked; better than taxing healthy people for others care. But taxing something to make it less desirable? Not for that.

Peter Hyatt said...

If we have to pay for others' health, shouldn't we demand they eat healthy?

This is not my argument. I do not believe that we should pay for others' health insurance, but it shows the slippery road of socialism which ends in bankruptcy.

If you wish to quit sugar drinks, good for you. If you don't, good for you.

Freedom.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

year-old girl missing in Bremerton

BREMERTON, Wash. — Police are looking for a 6-year-old girl who was last seen by family members on Saturday night.

Jenise Paulette Wright was last seen by family members around 10 p.m. when she went to bed at her home in the 1400 block of Northeast Steele Creek Drive in East Bremerton. The girl lives with her parents and six siblings in a mobile home park. Two of those siblings are adults.

According to her family, Jenise has left their home on previous occasions and wandered around the neighborhood with siblings or friends, but checks in every few hours. When the family awakened Sunday morning and she wasn’t in the house, they assumed she was somewhere in the neighborhood.

The girl is reported to be very outgoing.

If this is reported as being said by the her parents, this sent a red flag up for me.

Parents often boast. "Look how social my daughter/Son is. She/he is not afraid of anyone." This is often a sign of neglect.

Police said the family became concerned when they hadn’t heard from Jenise by 8:30 p.m. and started going door to door in the mobile home park. When they couldn’t find her, they called 911 at 9:55 p.m. on Sunday.
Kitsap County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the mobile home park at 10:34 p.m. and requested help from the sheriff’s search and rescue unit. Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue responded with a thermal imaging device to help find the missing girl.
A ground search with search and rescue volunteers and K-9 teams began about 1:30 a.m.

Scott Wilson of the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office said a command post for search and rescue has been established at Fire Station 41, near the Steele Creek Mobile Home Park where Jenise lives.
Wilson said 37 searchers, three dog teams and seven counties are participating in the search. The mobile home park has been searched and teams are now focusing on urban areas in the surrounding area.
KIRO 7 noted the 24-hour delay between when the child was last seen and when relatives called 911.

Wilson said the focus now is on finding Jenise and any decisions about the reporting delay by her adult relatives would be made later by the Kitsap County Prosecutor, however; Child Protective Services removed two other children from the home, an 8-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl, on Monday morning. Another child, a 16-year-old boy, lives at the home but is currently out of the area.
“As detectives got into the investigation, they realized there was probable cause to remove two children from the house,” said Wilson.
Wilson said he couldn't go into the reasons why the children were taken from the home, but said it was related to a case history with the family.

Investigators said neighbors reported that they may have Janice in the mobile home park between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., but the sightings have not been confirmed.
Jenise has been entered into the FBI National Crime Information Center as a missing child.
The girl is a mixed race of Caucasian and Filipino. She is 3 feet tall, 45 pounds with brown eyes and black hair.
Anyone with information about the girl’s location is asked to contact the Sheriff’s Office via the Kitsap County Central Communications at 360-308-5400.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/6-year-old-girl-missing-bremerton/ngtWG/

Anonymous said...

This is nuts! I don't drink soda, but I fully believe that this is pure craziness. 1 cent per teaspoon - for now. On sugary drinks -for now. The people in favor, how are you going to feel when this gets blown out of proportion and it does affect you and the things you eat and drink?

By the way, if anyone thinks this is to "help" people, and not 100% about (tax) money, I think you might be kidding yourselves.

I don't drink soda. That's my decision and my choice. Is this America or what? What's next?

Anonymous said...

I think this is along the same lines as taxing cigarettes. The idea is that people who choose to ingest/drink/inhale these things are most likely going to be in need of some medical care down the road, because we know enough now to tie things like soda and cigarettes to diseases and other conditions.
We can tax the items and use it for that medical care (which I'm not sure is actually happening, and that is another issue), or we can refuse to treat someone who has complications from diabetes or obesity or COPD. Except I don't think doctors can refuse care in all circumstances. And treatment costs money. It's a conundrum.

Anonymous said...

Yes it is along the same lines as the tax on cigarettes. The problem, like you pointed out though is, is that tax money being used to either help people quit and/or medical treatment? I've never seen any information about it actually being used for such reasons. I've never heard of any "tobacco tax" peograms available to help smokers. Maybe it is and I'm just unaware. I would like to read about such programs, if anyone has any info about that. It definitely wouldn't be used for actually treatment of any diseases that MAY (or may not) have been caused by use, especially since everyone is now forced to purchase health insurance. The health insurance pays for treatment of actual medical concerns. No we can't not treat people. For one thing that just wouldn't be morally right, and I don't think people can be refused medical treatment anyway. Then, with the smoking and even the sugar issue too, usually when you are diagnosed with any sort of disease, there is no guarantee what caused the disease. There are healthy people who get the same diseases as smokers and people who consume high amounts of sugar. It would be unethical to not medically treat people.

obamas pot and lighter said...

The president legalises pot yet bans pop!!

Anonymous said...

Hmm, her argument is that sugary-drinks are affordable, but healthy foods are not affordable. So how does raising the price of a soft drink, make eating healthy more affordable for consumers?

Why not have gubernment (yes I misspelled it on purpose) step out of the farming industry and stop setting prices on healthy foods.

Let it be supply and demand to adjust pricing on healthy foods, not the lawmakers of the country. I do not feel a bit sorry for farmers, they get paid regardless if they produce or do not. They are some of the laziest welfare recipients in the USA anymore, but I digress.

Also, WHY target soft drinks? Open your pantry or refrigerator/freezer and you will see plenty of things loaded with not only high-fructose corn syrup (it is a preservative) but what about the SODIUM? I think heart disease is still a much larger problem than is obesity.

Or how about the FDA ban, "azodicarbonamide" it has been deemed harmful and banned in other countries. If the FDA won't ban it, how about the gubernment go tax it like crazy?

What about GMO's? You want to be your brothers keeper, you should start with lobbying against GMO's. You should put a hefty price tag tax on GMO consumption. GMO's are banned in almost every country in the world, yet they are thriving in the good ol' USA and making our lawmakers, lobbyists and corporations very rich.

GMO's are the worst (contributing to a huge excess of herbicides), creating super bugs and super weeds, yet the government will not go after them with a tax because it would cut into most of the lawmakers own pockets.

Basically, our gubernment is shaking-down soft drink companies, so they can have a bit of the big pay-off. Does it remind anyone else of the organized crime from the 20s and 30s?

All freedoms matter. You give up a little of one freedom, because you have more important ones to worry about, you just lost all your freedoms.

Also, Peter says, "If we have to pay for others' health, shouldn't we demand they eat healthy?" (this is not his position)

Some of the healthiest eaters I have known have died from heart attacks, or have suffered heart attacks. The way they ate/eat, did not help prevent the hospital bills, doctor bills, or prolong their life in some cases.

It is ridiculous to assume that someone eats healthy and they will not have as many health issues as someone who eats what they want. When you visit a doctor for the first time, he has you fill out a "family history" why? Because it is in your genes.

Stop worrying about what your welfare recipients are purchasing, or start making those cool debit cards only be good for healthy items. Problem solved.




Anonymous said...

I think anyone on food stamps should not be able to buy any junk food....soda ,candy ,chips, etc. Only healthy non prepared foods . Done

Sarah said...

It's not a tax, it's a penalty! It's not a penalty, it's a tax! haha. It's both and it's wrong. Some will say that unhealthy people making these choices cost us in insurance and healthcare. One more reason why I do not want Government healthcare...once tax dollars are paying for it, suddenly everyone has a say in how you live your life. Yes we pay for it indirectly because of the increased cost of medical care partly a result of general poor health but if the companies had to compete across state lines I am sure that would drive the price down. A lack of competition decreases quality and increases price.