Taking stock of soda tax
Oh, Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino. A sugary-drinks tax? Statewide? Really? This, after the resounding defeat of such a tax in liberal Santa Fe, a place — if there is one in New Mexico — that might embrace the policy move, especially in pursuit of a worthy goal (in this case, to fund early childhood education). Sen. Ortiz y Pino is not promoting the tax. He simply is introducing a joint memorial asking the Legislative Finance Committee to study potential benefits, both in revenue and for public health, from such a tax. And the negatives, of course.
The suggestion from a liberal Democrat just before the beginning of the 2018 legislative session set off Gov. Susana Martinez, who took to Facebook to bemoan that “liberal Democrats are pushing a soda tax again.”
“Less than a year after voters in the state’s most liberal city easily rejected a tax on soda, Senate Democrats want to raise taxes on soda statewide,” she wrote.
“No matter the budget situation, Senate Democrats have tried to raise taxes every year since I’ve been your Governor,” Martinez wrote. “I promised you that I would not raise taxes and I’ve kept my word.”
That prompted the anti-sugary-drinks tax folks (and there are many) to blather on, and all of this back-and-forth obscures the very real issue with which New Mexico must deal. An obesity and diabetes epidemic is costing lives, reducing the quality of people’s lives and escalating health care costs.
A governor cannot brag about never raising taxes without, we believe, also showing how her policies improved people’s lives and saved money. Reducing the diabetes epidemic — and that’s just one condition associated with the overconsumption of sugar — would do both.
However, fighting about a particular policy solution — in this case, the sugary-drinks tax — might not move us forward in combating the epidemic. This newspaper supported Santa Fe’s proposed sugary-drinks tax. We believe the public health threat presented by sugar-laced drinks is uniquely dangerous. Increasing the costs of substances that cause harm, as we learned through taxes on tobacco, decreases use and eventually, reduces their damage. We can debate how best to achieve the goal, but there can be little argument about the soundness of reducing consumption of empty calories.
The American Diabetes Association, in the latest figures available, estimated the total cost of diagnosed diabetes in the United States in 2012 was $245 billion. The government, which pays medical costs for many — whether through Medicaid, Medicare, children’s insurance programs or veterans’ health care — has a real interest in promoting good health so that it spends less. A sugary-drinks tax is not the nanny state attempting to restrict the choices of a free people. It is a prudent policy to rein in medical costs. It is not the only policy solution, however, and wise politicians should look at all their options.
Perhaps the next step in this always contentious debate is to back away from studying a particular solution — in this case, the sugary-drinks tax — and ask a broader question. New Mexico needs to promote healthy habits and, yes, decrease consumption of sugary drinks and other junk foods. How best to proceed?
With no statewide tax on food, another solution to improve public health might be to define “food” more narrowly. Empty calories and obscene amounts of sugar and fat? Taxable. That’s one approach, but the point is this: We have a public health epidemic that needs taming. Sen. Ortiz y Pino’s memorial, we trust, should kick off a spirited debate. A debate, to be clear, that should not be tax-and-spend liberals or tax-hating conservatives but about how to solve a public health crisis.