When a Snack Isn’t

Out of crisis, they say, comes history.

And so it does. In this case the crisis arises in Sacramento, where our government finds itself $14 billion in arrears. That comes to $482.75 per citizen, by my crude figuring, and our leaders intend to wring it from us, one way or the other.

A dreary crisis, I admit, and one not given to lively reading on a Sunday morning. But now comes state Sen. Wadie P. Deddeh--what a wonderful name!--with his modest plan to tax snacks. And suddenly we’re dealing with history.

Here’s how it works. If California accepts Wadie P. Deddeh’s plan to tax snacks, then California will be forced to decide what a snack is, and what a snack is not.

In other words, California will be in the position of defining a “snack.” I am told on the highest authority that this attempt is without precedent. No other government at any time or any place has ever tried to provide an official definition for “snack.”

But that’s why God made California, eh? So let’s get on with it.

As it so happens, Wadie P. Deddeh has gotten on with it. Just turn to Page 3 of Senate Bill 5 and you will see the official list.

Here they are: “cookies, crackers, (excluding soda, graham, and arrowroot crackers), potato chips, snack cakes or pies, corn or tortilla chips, pretzels, granola snacks, popcorn, and fabricated chips and snacks.”

This means your Cheetos, your Ding-Dongs, your Trader Joe’s Hawaiian Justice potato chips, all have been consigned to the category of the snackable and taxable.

Fair enough. But do you sense the missing items on this list? Ah, yes. Where are the ice cream bars that melt and run down your forearms at the ballgame? Where are the peanuts in cellophane bags?

And how about the Welch’s grape juice frozen bars and the yogurt cups with raspberries? How about those little boxes of raisins with the pretty girl on the front?

Well, it turns out that Wadie P. Deddeh has skewered his definition and cheated history just a bit. He’s granted a few exemptions.

For beginners, he has chosen to forgive anything that’s frozen, no matter how sweet or munchable. So ice cream bars are not classified as snacks; they remain “food,” just like a carrot or a pork chop.

And that’s not all. Anything made from nuts is exempt. Also raisins. Also milk products. So a yogurt bar dipped in almonds and raisins is thrice exempted and will be taxed not a penny.

But a Triscuit, ah. That’s a snack and will cost you 7 1/2% more. How did Wadie P. Deddeh make his choices? This appears to be a mystery. The exemption for ice cream may have something to do with the fact that California happens to contain the world’s largest population of dairy cows, which passes its time in the barns of Chino, just east of Los Angeles. That’s only a guess, of course.

As for the raisins and the nuts and the fruit products, well, you know. This is California, after all.

But lookit: There’s a real problem here. California has its reputation to look after. We’re sticking our necks out with this snack definition business, and Wadie P. Deddeh’s plan is heading us for trouble.

Take the hypothetical case, say, of Aunt Thelma’s oatmeal cookies with raisins. According to SB 5, cookies are snackable and taxable but raisins are not. Do we tax the oatmeal and let the raisins go free? Does this mean we prorate the cookie? And if so, who becomes the prorater?

And what happens when Aunt Thelma, Inc., doesn’t like the outcome of the prorating? Do they sue?

I can see it coming. Another wave of California stories from the media barons back East: “California, facing a huge budget deficit, is trying to munch itself out of financial distress. But the troublesome case of an oatmeal cookie threatens to derail the plan. . . .”

Think about the consequences, Wadie P. Deddeh. Do not take your responsibilities lightly in this matter.

And consider that there may be other ways to settle the snack question. What we need here is simplicity.

In fact, how about this: Send one of your minions to an AM/PM minimarket. Tell them to walk inside and write down every edible item that is sold from a rack.

Those items will be your snacks. No one will ever argue with you. That’s because nothing sold from a rack at the AM/PM minimarket can be anything but a snack.

All remaining food will go free, and California will have its reputation saved.

Not to mention the reputation of Wadie P. Deddeh. Think about it, senator.