Nanny State tax aims at wrong target

Chris Powell’s column, “What’s needed are better parents, not a soda sin tax,” (April 16), reminds me of the comic strip “Peanuts.” Lucy offers to hold the football for Charlie Brown to kick. At the last instant, she pulls the ball away, which sends Charlie Brown flying instead of the ball. The state legislature expects us to “kick the ball” by believing that the money from H.B. 7314 will actually be used for its ostensible purposes. It will not. This legislation proposes a one-cent-per-fluid ounce tax on “sugary drinks.” Wouldn’t such a tax disproportionately affect poor and lower-income residents? Would it not drive yet more business out of state, especially in regions near the borders? If the residents of this state were taxed until they had nothing left in their pockets but lint, would Connecticut tax lint, too? The irony of such a tax is that it would exempt drinks containing aspartame which shows evidence of being a neurotoxin. From whence came the idea that shoveling (more) piles of cash at politicians will solve problems? Critical thinking is needed; not naïve, feel-good inanities. I say let’s replace “Constitution State” with “Nanny State.” For more about aspartame, please go to

Eric Straub

East Lyme

Hide Comments


Loading comments...
Hide Comments