New York is contemplating a penny-per-ounce tax on sugared drinks. Here's how New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg justified his support to a state Senate committee:

“Today, more than half the residents of New York City, and nearly 40 percent of our public school students, are overweight, many of them seriously so. That puts them dangerously on track to contracting diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, depression, and other serious health problems later in their lives.

“It’s in the interest of us all to prevent that from happening now - and the surest pathway to changing behavior is through the wallet.”

The story this comes from, at nutraingrediants-usa.com, points out that Bloomberg opposed it last year, but this year faces a budget shortfall and wants the money. Wouldn't be the first time for a politician. But publicly, at least, and plausibly, he has staked out public health as his justification.

So what does the soda industry come up with to counter? Is it another view of public health that bolsters the argument against a tax? Or perhaps another societal gain, equally as valuable as public health?

No. Just listen to what they say. That's what they want, right? Here's one, part of a statement from the American Beverage Assocation:

“What’s particularly disconcerting about this proposal is that the tax on a 12-pack of non-alcoholic beverages, like soft drinks, would be more than 9 times higher than the state tax on a 12-pack of alcoholic beverages, like beer.”

What they're saying: This tax is out of proportion. A tax would be fine, but it should be cheaper. (I doubt that's what they really mean, but I'm listening, rather than interpreting.) What they're not saying: Anything about public health, or any other overarching public value.

Here are two others, reported in paraphrase: "The trade body also said the soda tax would be a financial burden for families and threaten jobs in the beverage industry."

What they're saying: Sodas would cost more if they were taxed (brilliant!) and people might lose their jobs. What they're not saying: Anything about public health, or any other overarching public value.

Yes, jobs are important; I'm glad we have one in our family. But if we, collectively, are going act on comparitive value, are we going to go with public good or one family's good?
I recall a few years ago, during the ballot campaign in Mass. proposing to end dog racing, that jobs were a primary argument for the racing industry. The unstated part of the argument was that it doesn't matter what jobs do, it only matters that they exist. And that can't be; in the public realm, we have to decide what's best for all, and assume the jobs will come. They always have.

Meanwhile, the argument that a tax will be a financial burden on families is top-shelf stupid. That is the intent! The beverage makers' assumption equates sugared soda with a necessithy, which would make this tax akin to a tax on, say, milk or bread. But no one, ever, on the face of the earth, needed sugared soda. No one would be injured if less were consumed across the board.

Except, of course, the American Beverage Association and its consituents.