by Fred L. Smith, Jr.
June 13, 2003

 

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome back to Crossfire. You know, studies say that two out of every three Americans are overweight, and, therefore, face increased risk for high blood pressure, diabetes and premature death. Obesity-related health costs are more than $117 billion a year.

So in New York, one assemblyman has a plan to cut the fat, improve our health, and fund obesity awareness programs by imposing a one percent tax—a fat tax, if you will—on junk food, video games, and TV commercials that push fatty food. In the Crossfire to debate all this, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf and Fred Smith, the president and founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Mr. Banzhaf, I disagree with the premise of this idea. But even if I agreed with the premise, it would be impossible to implement fairly. Let me tell you why.

JOHN BANZHAF, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: They did it in Sri Lanka two years ago. Wake up.

CARLSON: Really? OK. Sri Lanka. I'm sorry I missed that.

BANZHAF: Yes. You ought to do some research before you come out and shoot your mouth off.

CARLSON: Professor, I want you to respond to facts if you're capable. This right here is vitamin D milk. One serving has eight grams of fat. This right here is a medium-sized avocado. It has 30 grams of fat, almost as much as a Big Mac.

This right here is a box of Lucky Charms, a fine cereal. It is endorsed by the American Heart Association as a healthy food. Under your idea...this would probably skate through. That's insane.

BANZHAF: Well, I'm not sure that's true. But if you hand that to me for a minute—or take this. Here's the Oreo cookies. Which one of these is more likely to make people fat?

They're going to be taxing this, not this. And let's talk about the reasons for it. If you have a fat tax—and it's being proposed in Britain; the British Medical Association wants a 17.5 percent tax. In Australia they're talking about a bigger tax for shock value. It does a number of things.

First, it discourages consumption. That's why we tax cigarettes and alcohol. We want to discourage consumption.

Secondly, we can use some of that money for healthy education messages. It worked very well with regard to smoking.

Third, it's a constant reminder. Whenever you buy a food which has a tax on it, keep eating. It's a reminder to you this is fattening.

Four, the old free enterprise system, the altar that you worship at, we might encourage manufacturers to produce candy bars or other foods which are healthier for you.

BEGALA: Let me bring you into this. John has a point, right? We tax alcohol, we tax tobacco. These are things that harm us.

We tax gambling. Bill Bennett alone balanced the budget in Nevada last year. What's wrong with taxing behaviors that we don't want (unintelligible).

FRED SMITH, PRESIDENT, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: That's like nibbling on a (unintelligible) delivery system. You know, the argument—people have different tastes. I mean, I'm from the South. Do we really believe that we ought to discriminate against southerners? Soul food is fatty food. But look, people happen to like it, it's a cultural tradition. And remember, there are no good foods, there are no bad foods. There are good diets and bad diets. People have a choice. They like the foods. They should not make foods more expensive.

This is regressive tax. It's basically the typical thing of elitists telling poor people what they can and can't do. It's immoral, it's obscene. Southerners shouldn't be treated discriminatorily. The Civil War is over, John…

BANZHAF: Most of the cost is paid by the great majority of people who are not obese. So we are shifting the cost to the people who cause it.

CARLSON: Gentlemen, if I could just interrupt you and get you to respond to something, Mr. Banzhaf. You're a law professor, as I remember, not a doctor. But even you know that there is no consensus on what makes people fat. For instance, if I...

BANZHAF: Bull. Are you aware of the fact that government regulations on nutrition—I'm asking you a question. Are you aware of the federal government regulations which define already nutritious versus non-nutritious foods?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: If I eat steak and cheese exclusively for a month, there is no question that I will lose weight. Two fatty foods, I eat them exclusively. I lose weight.

Bottom line, we don't know precisely what makes people fat, diet and not food.

BANZHAF: Look at virtually any major—talk to the Surgeon General, the Center for Disease Control, many of your health organizations both here and abroad. We know what causes people to get fat. It is eating too many calories for their exercise.

If we tell people what is in foods, if we tax foods according to their percentage to make people obese, we will reduce it just as we have reduced smoking. Smoking—the tax on smoking works fine.

SMITH: John's got a point.

BEGALA: I think if we followed the president's example, by the way, George W. Bush works out every day, watches his diet. Why not reward healthy Americans like George W. Bush and penalize people that want—anybody want to make themselves fat here on an Oreo here?

SMITH: Look, let's get it clear. John's right. There are many parts of the world where people are thin. And these are places where people are starving.

It's where food costs have been driven up by the kind of policies John wants to see. Taxing food, making food more expensive will certainly make people thin, indeed, in many cases in the world. High-priced food has made people dead.

It is worthwhile, essentially, allowing people to have choices to recognize that people are perfectly capable of being grownups and deciding what level of exercise and diet they want to live with. We don't need the Johns of the world...

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: You make a very interesting point, Mr. Banzhaf. And that is, you claim the rest of us pay the costs of the bad decisions of individuals.

BANZHAF: It's a government study. Did you read it?

CARLSON: Mr. Banzhaf, if you could stop interrupting me and answer my question if you can, if you dare. And it's this: The cost of sexually transmitted diseases—hold on—is very high. That's exactly the point.

We don't dare regulate the sex lives of individuals simply because the rest of us pay the costs of their bad choices. Do you see the point?

BANZHAF: Yes, but the point is, we don't because we can't.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Oh come on, John. Think about it.

BANZHAF: We tax cigarettes and we are reducing consumption.

SMITH: Oh, yes. Right, John.

BANZHAF: We tax alcohol, we keep the consumption down. It worked. How are you going to tax sex?

Are you going to have everybody pay when they plug in? What are you going to do? Come on.

BEGALA: First off, it is true that in 1955 the majority of American men smoked. About 57 percent. Today, 25 percent.

We've cut smoking in half by a campaign of higher taxes and more education. Exactly what Mr. Banzhaf has suggested for fatty food. What's wrong with that?

BANZHAF: It works. It works.

SMITH: Look...

CARLSON: It's called fascism, that's why.

(APPLAUSE)

BANZHAF: A name is not an argument. You just keep asking questions. You don't make any arguments.

SMITH: You know, really, if we had been having this debate 10 years ago, and John was rushing around saying we've got to tax fatty foods, people would say this guy is an airhead. Now these airheads get air time.

You know really the real challenge in America is to say: Do we want to treat our people like children and have a childish society? Or do we want to have a society of individuals who take responsibility for their own health and their own weight?

I think we want a society that allows people to make choices and learn from the consequences. Some of us are a little overweight. I've been planning to join a gym. After this, I think I will, because I sure don't want to be taxed on Oreos.

BANZHAF: OK. But most of what I propose is now in effect. Most of what you propose is not in effect.

CARLSON: Professor Banzhaf, thanks for joining us. Fred Smith, thank you for spreading the truth. We really appreciate it.