Living in Pennsylvania, it has been quite heartening to be part of some really great, hard-fought, Democratic victories in recent years.
I had the fortune of helping vote Tom Wolf in over Corbett in 2014, a year that was overall abysmal for Democrats throughout the country.
Last year, an off-off year, Democrats were able to sweep the state Supreme Court seats up for election, and in my home city of Philadelphia, we elected Jim Kenney, a solid Progressive, championing universal Pre-K and a populist platform, over a corporate-backed, pro-charter Democrat.
And later this year, we have a huge opportunity to get rid of an especially awful Republican in Senator Pat Toomey.
And in a few short days, I will have the great fortune to be able to vote for an unapologetic Democratic Socialist for President of the United States. I still intend to make that vote with great pride.
But yesterday, I was reminded that, as a thoughtful citizen who does his best to use his intellect and to stay informed when it comes to political issues, it is vital to remember that my support for a candidate means broadly supporting their well-reasoned stances, but it does not mean blindly following all his — or her — policy decisions and ideology where ever they may lead.
And Bernie, although I support you on a wide range of issues, on Mayor Kenney’s proposed Soda tax, I believe that you are totally wrong on this issue.
“My disagreement is how he proposed to fund it,” Sanders said. “I think that taxing soda is a regressive way to fund it. That tax burden will likely come down on low-income and working families, many of which are struggling right now to make ends meet.”
First of all, I understand why you may have come to the conclusion that you have. This is, after all, one of the main arguments of the tax’s major opponents.
For the most part, the soda tax’s major opponents seem to be the beverage industry and its workers’ union groups. It should not be hard to understand why these groups would be opposed to the tax, and sure enough, most of them will be quite willing to tell you that what they are really afraid of, is that it will hurt their profits, and hurt their jobs. Sure, they will trot out the regressive tax rhetoric any chance they get, because they know it works, but that is not why this certain subset is especially opposed to the tax. Ultimately, they are against it because it will hurt their bottom line.
As I write this, one of their many ads against the Soda tax, and what they have cleverly rebranded as a “grocery tax,” just came up on my television screen.
On the other hand, a majority of the city’s residents supported the soda tax — at least they did before it got so highly politicized. So while you are saying that you are standing up for the low-income and working families who could potentially be burdened by this tax, you are also going against a lot of those same people who support it. They would be getting funding for a universal Pre-K program, something that many people would argue is better for the whole community in the long run. Though they often fail to mention that in the attack ads.
The thing about all of this is, what the major opponents of the Soda tax are failing to mention, where I think they are being immensely disingenuous — and now, including you — is that an additional tax would not be the only additional burden on low-income and working families. The real additional burden is that these low-income and working families, these disproportionate consumers of sugary drinks, are far more burdened by the financial and health costs that come with consuming these drinks.
“What we know about Type 2 diabetes is not only are low-income and poor people more likely to get it, but they’re also the ones that, once they get it, are much more likely to suffer complications. And the complications from Type 2 diabetes when they’re bad are really bad, whether it’s amputations, or blindness, or cardiovascular disease.”
In the long run, I do not think decrying efforts — that might have the effect of reducing the consumption of these sugary drinks, even if they come in a regressive form that impacts low-income people more — is the right way to go.
If we know that they should not be consuming these drinks in such large quantities, that the financial and health costs of consuming these drinks far outweigh the costs of reducing their consumption, yet we continue to allow them to consume these drinks, if we take a more comprehensive view of the effects, I would argue that is the more regressive policy.
If we go on to think about how the economic costs of illness, of debilitating conditions like diabetes and amputations and blindness, really end up being distributed to all members of society, the flipside is that allowing people to continue in their destructive behaviors, without some sort of mechanisms to mitigate them, ends up being a form of tax on a wide range of our fellow citizens, not just the low-income.
Furthermore, the argument underlying your opposition, and most of the opposition to the soda tax, kind of undermines many similar populist proposals you tend to support in other avenues.
What a lot of outsiders may not be aware of, is that the proposed tax would be in the form of a tax on the distributors, not the consumers themselves.
So this soda tax, remember the part about funding universal Pre-K? Again, that is something that mostly low-income and working families would likely benefit from the most.
One could argue that this is a benefit largely for the low-income families in the city. But imposing this regulation might lead to industry having to pass the cost onto its consumers, might lead to the loss of jobs.
Doesn’t that sound familiar, Bernie?
Doesn’t that sound exactly like the arguments made by opponents to raising the minimum wage, to addressing income inequality, hell, even Obamacare?
That sounds right to you?
In opposing Mayor Kenney’s proposed soda tax, you are siding with the very same anti-populist forces you purport to fight against. Ostensibly, why you enjoy much of the political support that you have now. The fact that it puts you at odds with a recently-elected Democrat who also ran on a similarly populist platform makes your position all the more glaring.
The last point I wanna make, is that in taking this position, what it really says to me, is that you didn’t really stop to think about the real implications of this issue. What you saw is that a certain argument was being made — that this tax is regressive — and chose to use it to advance your ideology of taking on Wall Street. An ideology, I swear, that I support.
But it is also important to think things through critically, which I do not think you have done in this situation. While I know that it is important for your campaign to attack the Corporatist sector of America, you did not have to do it in a way that does a disservice to a whole set of the low-income families you are supposed to be fighting for.
Maybe the soda tax will end up being regressive. Maybe it will lead to higher prices, and some people losing their jobs. But it was for the benefit of the community. People who need universal pre-k, so they can work, and take care of loved ones. And most importantly, it would benefit their health and longevity in the long run.
Look Bernie, I am not here to burn down the Liberal platform, as some here might accuse me of based on that I am disagreeing with you.
I agree that there are issues with what Kenney is proposing. I doubt that it would raise nearly as much as he claims — realistically, people are just going to go not-that-far-at-all to get their drinks outside the city limits. And I think he would have made a better case if he had based the tax on the real health aspect — the tax is based on the drinks per ounce of liquid; I think he would have made a better case had he based it on the sugar/sugar substitute content. But not only was he proposing a solution to a local problem, and one that might help people live healthier to boot — this was one of the major issues on which he was elected in the first place. Clearly, the voters had his back on funding universal Pre-K; but with the strong special interest forces starting to weigh in, he could certainly use some backup.
I am also not here to knock the beverage industry unions for doing what they are supposed to do. Unions have done far more to improve outcomes for the average worker than any other institution. But likewise, it is nothing if not realistic to recognize that, sometimes, the interests of unions are going to be pitted against the interests of the wider society. Same could be said for any other capitalist institution.
I am also not one to support regressive taxes in every case. Personally, I think we should do away with sales tax on certain, non-luxury things. But they are still a significant policy tool, one that can be leveraged in a way that is beneficial to society. I thought you recognized that; as someone who proposes a carbon emissions tax, one could argue that could be interpreted as a regressive tax as well. Unless you think the cars primarily driven by low-wage families are more fuel-efficient than those primarily driven by the wealthy?
And, while I disagree with you on this one issue, Bernie, you are still my pick for the Democratic primary. But I am writing this, ostensibly to you, opposing your position on the soda tax, for pretty much the same reason that I am voting for you on Tuesday: my support comes along with the understanding that I do not expect my candidate to reflect my beliefs on every single issue, but at the same time I will be more than willing, as you should be, to identify the areas where I think you are wrong, and apply pressure on those points.
