Northwest Herald / NWHerald.com ā¢ Thursday, October 20, 2016
28
OPINIONS
NORTHWEST HERALD EDITORIAL BOARD:
Dan McCaleb
Kevin Lyons
Valerie Katzenstein
Jon Styf
John Sahly
ANOTHER VIEW
Sugar tax is a bad idea
Moral superiors are at it again The sugar tax is back. It was rejected earlier this year by the General Assembly, but proponents of levying significant new taxes on sweetened beverages have narrowed their aim. Instead of the state, the focus now is on Cook County. Board Chairwoman Toni Preckwinkle last week proposed a penny-an-ounce tax on sweetened drinks, including soda, lemonade, sports drinks. It also would cover artificial sweeteners and drinks sold from fountains as well as in containers. A 12-ounce can of Coke would cost an extra 12 cents. A six-pack of the same size container would cost consumers an additional 72 cents. A case of 24 cans would set a consumer back nearly $3. In other words, Preckwinkle is asking for a lot. Generally, these proposals are put forward as health measures. Soft drink critics charge that too many people drink too many soft drinks and, as a consequence, become obese. But millions of people who consume soft drinks donāt become obese either. That, however, is not a great sales pitch. It smacks too much of ā and rightfully so ā nanny state government where the moral superiors dictate the choices of those they consider their moral inferiors. So Preckwinkle is touting her tax plan as part of a crime-fighting package that will raise $174 million and be used to finance law enforcement measures and threatened budget cuts if itās not adopted. āThis budget, instead, calls not only for dedication to criminal justice reform, but a significant investment on public safety,ā she said. Of course, that estimate of $174 million in new revenues is strictly speculation. People arenāt stupid. If this proposal becomes law, itās only a matter of time before consumers drive across the county line to a store in a neighboring county or across the state line to Indiana. When they do, theyāll buy their soft drinks and everything else they want. These sugar drink proposals have been introduced in states and cities across the country. One of the latest to adopt this approach was Philadelphia, where the measure faces a court challenge. Essentially, sugar tax supporters are trying to do to the soft drink supporters what anti-tobacco groups have done to smokers ā make products so expensive people wonāt buy them. Itās a bully-boy style of doing business, one that puts many people off. But itās becoming an increasingly common approach for those who know best what choices other people should make. ā The (Champaign) News-Gazette
THE FIRST
AMENDMENT
ANOTHER VIEW
Trump should be more like Nixon At the first presidential debate, Donald Trump said he would āabsolutelyā accept the outcome of the election as the will of the people. But that was before poor debate reviews rolled in and boasts of sexual assault surfaced, sending his campaign into a tailspin. Trump has since backtracked, claiming that the election might be stolen from him. And if it is, guess who will be to blame? As usual, Trump leaves little to the imagination. āI just hear such reports about Philadelphia,ā he said at a rally in Pennsylvania last week. āWe have to make sure that this election is not stolen from us and is not taken away from us. Everybody knows what Iām talking about.ā Yes, we do. Philadelphia is a predominantly minority city. Trump is suggesting that black and Latino voters might steal an election from a candidate with record-low approval numbers among them. No one has ever
accused him of being subtle. Itās true that Philadelphia has seen isolated incidents of electoral fraud, as have other places in America. In recent years, several hundred people have been convicted for election fraud, but most of them engaged in double voting, illegal registration and other individual crimes, not grand conspiracies to steal elections coordinated by party officials. The sloppy state of voter registration records is a disgrace. But widespread electoral fraud has not occurred in a national election in the modern era, and the controls now in place to prevent it are stricter than at any time in history. If Trump loses the election, he will have only himself to blame. Yet, just as he did after losing some state primaries, he gives every indication that he is preparing to claim a rigged vote, and in the process stoke racial and ethnic divisions. It is incumbent upon voters
and elected officials ā particularly those in his own party ā to demand that Trump show more respect for this most basic of democratic traditions, as a few already have. After years of perpetuating the birther lie, the American public should not have to tolerate another Trump attempt at undermining a presidentās legitimacy. The last time allegations of widespread election fraud marred a national election result was 1960, when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by 9,000 votes in Illinois and 46,000 votes in Texas. Nixonās supporters urged him to demand recounts, but he refused, saying, āOur country canāt afford the agony of a constitutional crisis, and I damn well will not be a party to creating one just to become president or anything else.ā Trump, who says he admires Nixon, should be prepared to exercise as much restraint.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ā Bloomberg View