Patricia Kilday Hart: Soft-drink tax idea gets sour reception COMMENTARY

On Easter Sunday, thousands of Texans enjoyed the annual ritual of sharing a church pew with a giddy child in the throes of a sugar rush induced by a chocolate Easter bunny or a handful of jelly beans.

It's sobering, then, to consider that the much-anticipated holiday treats contain less sugar (34 grams for a 100 gram bunny and 25 grams for 25 jelly beans) than the 12-ounce can of Coke chugged daily by 78 percent of girls and 83 percent of boys in Texas middle and high schools.

A third of Texas pre-teens and teens would have to dive even further into that Easter basket to match the sugar contained in their daily soda consumption: 35 percent of boys and 22 percent of girls consume three or more sweetened beverages every day. That's the equivalent of consuming a 2-pound sack of sugar each week.

Those sickeningly-sweet statistics run on a parallel course with two mounting crises in Texas: growing obesity rates and the soaring cost of government-sponsored medical care.

In the past four decades, Americans have doubled their intake of sugary beverages like soft drinks — on a trajectory that mirrors rising obesity rates, according to a study by the University of Texas Health Science Center. One-third of Texas kids, ages 10-17, are considered overweight or obese. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs estimates the state will be shouldering $30 billion in annual health care costs related to obesity by 2030.

Given those numbers - and Texas' current state budget crisis - you'd think there would be a little more interest in state Sen. Eddie Lucio's soda tax proposal, which could raise as much as $2 billion a year. Or, as the Brownsville Democrat put it, enough money to keep 20,000 Texas teachers on the payroll. It's also estimated the tax would drive down soda consumption, reducing by $1 billion what Texas would spend annually on obesity-related health care expenses.

"We cannot cut our way out of the financial hole," Lucio said at a Finance Committee hearing Monday, a few days before the committee passed a new state budget with $4 billion in cuts to public education. "We need to have the political courage to admit that new sources of revenue are needed."

He was speaking to a near-empty committee table. Few senators stuck around to hear Lucio make his case for a penny-per-ounce soda tax; no vote was taken.

Industry lobbyists busy

The soft-drink industry doesn't leave this sort of thing to chance. This legislative session, the Texas Beverage Association hired 10 registered lobbyists to keep an eye on the soda tax; Pepsi and Coca-Cola also have hired help. When Congress considered a national excise tax on sweetened beverages, the Huffington Post estimated the industry spent $24 million lobbying against the proposal.

Americans don't challenge their iconic soft-drink makers easily. Remember the great scene in Dr. Strangelove, when Capt. Lionel Mandrake (Peter Sellers) wants to shoot open a Coke machine to get coins for a pay phone call warning the president of possible nuclear disaster? Another officer reacts with horror: "You're going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company." From the empty desks at Monday's hearing, it appeared that few lawmakers would tempt that fate.

Critics of the tax argue it's unfair to single out one vice contributing to unhealthy lifestyles - surely the number of burgers, fries and tacos also has something to do with the expanding waistlines of Texans. There's also the small government argument: Why should the government tell me what to eat and drink?

Fear of the nanny state

But Texas has lots of "sin" taxes, as any smoker well knows. In many ways, Lucio's proposal is today's version of the tobacco tax, which Americans embraced as a way to pay for the medical costs associated with smoking. Taxpayers are footing a big bill to pay for obesity-related health costs; shouldn't there be an imbedded tax in one of the root causes of obesity?

This fear of the nanny-state - as well as corporate resistance - may trip up another health-conscious bill pending in the Legislature. State Rep. Richard Raymond, R-Laredo, wants to prohibit the purchase of sodas, cookies, chips and candy with food stamps.

"It just makes sense to move toward better nutrition," he says. Grocery store interests, who don't want the hassle of implementing a new policy, oppose the measure, which recently cleared a House committee.

Our state leaders have been promising to cut all the fat from our state government. Is it time to also consider cutting the sugar?

patti.hart@chron.com