Small differences can illuminate huge gaps. So it is with the conflicting positions on proposals to tax soda. Liberal Hillary says yes; Progressive Bernie says no.
The soda tax is a Mike Bloomberg initiative beloved of many public health advocates. Put a $4 dollars tax on a twelve pack of soda and you raise big money and discourage mass overconsumption of sugar, with less diabetes and obesity. It's the tobacco model, where big tax increases probably reduced cigarette consumption. Hillary likes it.
So what's the problem? Bernie says it's a regressive tax that hits the poor disproportionately. "A regressive tax on soda ... will significantly increase taxes on low-income and middle-class Americans. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it should be the people on top who see an increase in their taxes, not low-income and working people."
Neither is playing nice about the dispute. The Hillary Camp: "I'm disappointed Sen. Sanders would ignore the interests of thousands of low-income -- predominately minority children -- and side with greedy beverage corporations who have spent millions in advertising for decades to target low income minority communities." Bam. The Bernie Camp: "I am very surprised that Secretary Clinton would support this regressive tax after pledging not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000," This proposal clearly violates her pledge. A tax on soda and juice drinks would disproportionately increase taxes on low-income families in Philadelphia." Re-Bam.
Who's right? They're both right. It will reduce obesity and raise needed revenue. It is a regressive tax which, like all sales taxes, impacts the poor disproportionately.
This is not a new dispute. Many initiatives dear to the heart of leftish constituencies are based on the same tax theory. Some Enviros love a carbon tax to reduce pollution or congestion pricing to reduce auto use. Health advocates loved the tobacco tax as it reduced smoking. Transit advocates love a gasoline tax to fund roads and bridges. They're all regressive sales taxes enacted in the name of some other greater good. None of the advocacy groups supporting these taxes has taken on the economic argument. Instead they adopt a version of what we've gotten in the soda debate: "Why are you supporting Big Soda/Big Auto/Big Oil/Big Tobacco?."
It's actually more important than slogans. Hillary, why should we increase regressive taxes even for a laudable purpose? Bernie, we need the money and why shouldn't we make it harder for poor folks to hurt themselves?
What we learn about Hillary and Bernie is instructive. The heart of Bernie's message is economic equity. There's a principled reason to stop the habitual tax burden on working people. The heart of Hillary's message is a coalition of important interest groups and important issues that need practical responses from government.
It would be nice if this filtered into the primary contest. Elections are where these kind of disagreements should get thrashed out. Traditional liberals should defend regressive taxes. Progressives should defend abandoning a tool that actually works. And Democratic voters should fall in behind one of the competing views.