A failed bid to tax soft drinks; a healthcare summit; the Tebows’ Super Bowl ad

Soda tax? Fat chance

Re “Soda tax fizzles,” Feb. 7

Beneath the clever puns about the fizzling of a proposed soda tax is actually a rather ugly lesson in modern American values.

When a modest attempt to discourage the consumption of carbonated sugary drinks is seen as a threat to the health and general welfare of the soft-drink industry rather than an opportunity to promote a more healthy lifestyle while generating revenue for public health programs, the real meaning of healthcare, as it is understood by our lawmakers, comes into stark and tragic focus.

Michael Toohey Heilig

Venice

I was saddened to read Rep. John Lewis’ (D-Ga.) comments on a proposal to tax soft drinks.

He argued that the soda tax could lead to taxes on other foods (sure, John!), raising prices for hard-pressed consumers during a severe recession. Then he asked, if you begin taxing one sugar product, where do you draw the line?

It has been confirmed that the consumption of soda is a major factor in the rise of childhood obesity and diabetes.

In the 1960s, when he was on the outside, Lewis was concerned for the well-being of his constituents. Today, as a congressman, he represents Atlanta, the corporate headquarters of Coca-Cola. His concern has shifted.

Josef Colman

Santa Monica

::

As a scientist, I believe public policy should be influenced by facts. Research can be helpful, but it isn’t always necessary. Sometimes common sense and basic math skills are enough. The proposed soda tax is a great example.

We don’t need research to prove that high-calorie drinks contribute to obesity.

The financial burden of a tax of 1 cent per ounce would fall disproportionately on the poor, but obesity disproportionately is a poor person’s disease. Perhaps 1 cent per ounce is too much when a “small drink” is at least 16 oz. -- but that’s the whole point. A small drink should not be 16 oz. (200 calories for most regular soft drinks). It should be 8 oz. or 10 oz. A tax would promote portion control and save most Americans thousands of calories -- and at least a few pounds -- per year.

This is just another example of checkbook science, in which companies with the checkbooks control the science and the public debate. But those of us who can add know that taxing high-calorie drinks with negligible nutritional value would reduce obesity and improve health.

Diana Zuckerman

Washington

The writer is president of the National Research Center for Women & Families.

Healthcare reform, again

Re “Obama calls for health summit,” Feb. 8

It’s interesting that President Obama said that in his planned health summit, he wants to examine “all the best ideas that are out there” for health reform.

Does that mean the tremendous cost savings and benefits of expanding Medicare to everyone under 65 will finally get a hearing? Or will single-payer advocates continue to be sidelined?

If Obama is really serious about looking at all the best ways to fix our broken healthcare system, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

Sylvia Moore

Los Angeles

::

Re “A plan in search of a strategy,” Opinion, Feb. 7

Doyle McManus says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is pressing for enacting the Senate version of the healthcare bill and then making adjustments that would need only a simple majority to pass.

If that is what it takes, then do it. I’m tired of supporting pristine, pure but gutless Democrats who can’t get anything done.

Leroy Miller

West Hills

Fighting over foster care

Re “County to end emphasis on family over foster care,” Feb. 5, and “County child welfare official backs off comments,” Feb. 6

If the Department of Children and Family Services is giving greater preference to the placement of children in foster care rather than helping parents build safer environments, that ignores every major study about what such removals do to the child.

To be sure, better monitoring and caseloads that make frequent home visits possible are needed in both family and foster care settings. But removal of a child from his or her family leads to higher rates of delinquency and crime, school absences and dropping out, physical and mental illness, unemployment and homelessness for those who age out, and pervasive emotional distress.

It has been reported that 70% of the inmates in California prisons have been in foster homes.

Homeless parents are increasingly found to be negligent because of their homelessness, and the department removes their children at a far greater fiscal, personal and social cost than it would take to subsidize their housing and provide services.

Ralph D. Fertig

Los Angeles

The writer is a clinical associate professor at the USC School of Social Work.

::

We operate a free telephone hotline and have received many calls over the last 2 1/2 years confirming the dangerous reunification practices in Los Angeles County. It has become increasingly clear that L.A. child welfare practices were aimed at driving the numbers down -- and the practices proved deadly.

Child abuse policy should never “pivot” or be driven by numbers. Good policy requires strict adherence to diligent investigative standards, risk assessment and a commitment to protecting children. Experimenting with a new financial arrangement with the feds was an experiment with the lives of children. It’s always about money and politics. It should always be about the children.

Margaret Coyne

Corte Madera, Calif.

The writer is executive director of Advokids, which provides legal assistance for children in foster care.

The Sheen case

Re “Sheen is charged in assault case,” Feb. 9

The Times reports that Brooke Mueller told police her husband, Charlie Sheen, “pinned her to the bed, gripped her neck with one hand and held a knife to her throat as he straddled her.”

Mueller’s attorney, Yale Galanter, called this “an incident between a husband and wife that gets a little out of hand.”

I call Galanter’s comment, and Sheen’s act, heinous. I suggest you send copies of the past 12 months of The Times to Galanter so he can read about the hundreds of dead women whose husbands and boyfriends got “a little out of hand.”

Susan Leviton

Encino

Tebows’ ad

Re “That’s it? Anti-abortion ad takes an understated tone,” Feb. 8

Because NOW’s president, Terry O’Neill, couldn’t criticize the Tebows’ ad for its antiabortion message, she chose to claim that it celebrated violence against women. Give me a break! If she truly believed that, she would have directed her criticism against poor old Betty White, who got tackled to the ground in a Snickers Super Bowl ad.

Can we now call the Focus on the Family ad “pro-life” rather than “antiabortion”? The subtlety was deafening.

Connie Veldkamp

San Clemente

A Reagan bill

Re “Reagan going on 100,” Feb. 6

I never voted for Ronald Reagan, but I share the view that our nation owes a debt of gratitude for his leadership, warmth and ability to connect with the American people.

I suggest that Congress pass a law to place Reagan on the $50 bill and to put Franklin D. Roosevelt on the $20. I think Americans would welcome the replacement of Ulysses S. Grant and Andrew Jackson with Reagan and FDR.

Bill Orton

Long Beach

Re “Reagan going on 100,” Feb. 6