After working the issue of how flavored beers are classified for a few years now, I find, unfortunately, that most of what I read about the issue is incorrect.  Journalists making obvious mistakes, such as how these products are manufactured.  Worse yet, they seem to swallow whatever the anti-alcohol advocates feed them, and do not do their own research.  Imagine my surprise when I read the following article that asks the questions that deserve to be, but as of yet, have not been asked by the media establishment.  I was even more surprised to learn that it was a college paper, the University of California, San Diego.  I applaud the author for his research into this subject and his unbiased approach.  I can only hope that he takes it with him where ever he lands after college.

I have become a food label-reading fanatic.  Its true.  I can tell you the calories, fat, sugar and fiber in almost any food.

I don’t just do this because I have too much time on my hands (I wish!). I am really trying to live a healthier lifestyle – exercise, vitamins, drink minimum 8 glasses of water and watch what I eat.  I want to look good, but equally important, I want to feel good – why else would anyone do hot yoga?

So why is it that I can look at any food product in the grocery and read the serving facts, but I cannot do that for my alcohol of choice?  I want to know how many grams of fat are in Bailey’s.  I want to know how many carbs are in Guinness.  I want to know how many calories are in my cabernet.

The fact is that Diageo supports VOLUNTARY serving facts labeling and has requested that the TTB (the government agency that regulates the alcohol industry) allow it to print on its labels serving facts. To date, its requests have been denied.
Why?  Why would a governmental agency not want consumers to know what they are consuming?  Wouldn’t that only lead to making better decisions about what to drink or what not to drink?

Something interesting happened on Election Day in California.  I am not talking about Governor Schwarzenegger bucking the national trend and getting re-elected.  I am talking about the voters of California soundly rejecting all tax increase ballot propositions.

The concept has been around for years.  Target an industry and make them pay for something broad based.  A recent example of this type of ballot initiative was the increase on the tax of those making over $1 million a year to fund universal mental heath care, which passed in 2004 in California.

This year there were 4 such ballot propositions:
Proposition 86 – a $2.60 per pack increase on tobacco to fund various healthcare programs
Proposition 87 – a $4 billion a year tax on oil producers to fund alternative energy research and production
Proposition 88 – creates a statewide parcel tax of $50 per real property tax to provide and estimated $450 million annually in additional funding of K-12.
Proposition 89 – Increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions to provide public funding of political campaigns.

All of which were soundly defeated.  This comes on the heels of the defeat in this year’s primary election of the “millionaire tax” to fund pre-school. At the same time, however, all of the infrastructure bonds (Propositions 1A – 1E and Prop 84) that were on the ballot this election, which add up to over $40 billion dollars, passed overwhelmingly.

What do we learn from this?  I believe it shows that Californians believe in fair taxation.  Punitively taxing an industry to fund something either broad based or earmarking those  funds is not fair and in the long term does not work.

If something broad based, such as education, healthcare, etc., requires additional funding, that funding should come from the general fund, not by punishing a group or industry simply because they may be an easy target.  I am hopeful that as we approach the new year and a new legislative session, policy makers remember what happened at the ballot box this year and steer clear of punitive taxation simply because it gets press and instead look at broad based and long-term solutions for these problems.