In a move that surprises no one, the Wall Street Journal is carrying an op-ed piece which is favorable to a large multinational corporation.  The article in question is a defense of Coke by the CEO of the Coca-Cola company, and he wants you to know that the proposed tax on sugary sodas will not work, and will maybe break the entire country and also make puppies sad.  You don't want puppies to be sad, do you?  I didn't think so!

The CEO of Coca-Cola has a good point, which is that legislating behavior - particularly eating behavior - is probably doomed to failure, and possibly anti-American.  But he's a little disingenuous about the deal with the proposed soda tax.

The first thing about this tax is that it's a sin tax.  We as a country tax things deemed "sinful" more heavily than, say, carrots.  For example, taxes are very high on both cigarettes and alcohol. These are products which are undeniably bad for you.  They are also products which are discretionary purchases. (Although having quit smoking only a few months ago, I will forgive you for protesting that cigarettes aren't "discretionary" any more than heroin is discretionary for a junkie.  But let us agree that no one NEEDS cigarettes in order to continue to exist, the same way that we NEED water, air, and so forth.)

Are sugary sodas like Coke and Pepsi both discretionary and undeniably bad for you?  Yes on both counts.  In fact, in racing to Coke's defense, Mr. Kent can only say that "Even soft drinks with sugar, like Coca-Cola, contain no more calories (140 calories in a can) than some common snacks, breakfast foods and most desserts served up daily in millions of American homes."  I literally stopped and laughed out loud at that line.  Saying that your product is "no worse than a Twinkie" or "no worse than a sack of Oreos"?  Really?  That's what you're going with?  Okay.  

I am reminded of the state of Idaho's license plate slogan, "Famous Potatoes."  If that's the best you've got, then I am really really sorry.

The second thing about this tax is that it is an attempt to use economics to influence behavior.  Time after time we have found that economic theory can solve problems faster, and more completely, than any other method.  It can be shown over and over that cash money is the only thing that motivates people to make changes.  When Canada tripled the cost of a pack of cigarettes, the smoking rate went down by a third.  When gas prices go up, people suddenly don't want to buy SUVs.  Let's face it; money talks.

Now, Mr. Coke does have an excellent point, which is that sugary sodas are probably not the greatest contributor to our increased daily caloric intake.  Most people place that blame at the feet of perfectly normal foods which somehow now contain high fructose corn syrup for no earthly reason.

However, were we to institute a steep tax on everything that contained HFCS, I'm sure the manufacturers of Wheat Thins would make the same protest as Mr. Coke.  "It's difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages," Mr. Coke says. As does every other manufacturer.  This is a collective problem, and sadly, Coke is part of that collective.