Would You Like Asparagus With That?

James Carville was really on to something when he told the Clinton '92 campaign team, "It's the economy, stupid." Because when you get right down to it, that's the only thing that everybody can truly relate to. Except for an elite few, most of us don't really know jack about issues like war and peace, diplomacy, and even politics itself, so we have to decide which sources we trust to educate ourselves and form opinions that way - or make totally uninformed opinions in a lot of cases. But the economy and micro-economics are things that we live with on a day to day basis. In our daily lives we set priorities on how our money is to be allocated. And from that experience, many feel comfortable extrapolating their economic priorities on a national level. I think that's why the most civil discussions on blogs tend to be the ones about economic issues, especially regarding taxation and government spending. People on the left and right challenge each others' priorities, and it usually makes for a healthy debate. So I'd like to encourage some of that.

I came across this article about how the poorest in our society are most susceptible to obesity and all the related diseases, in part because foods that are healthy (fresh produce, lean meats and fish) tend to be more expensive than unhealthy foods. Another factor is that many people work multiple jobs and don't have the time to cook proper meals for their children, so the children grow up with poor eating habits and many fall into the obesity trap. The article also includes opinions on possible remedies to the problem in Washington state, including a tax on junk food that could raise revenue to subsidize the sale of vegetables.

I think this is a terrific point of debate. I know that conservatives and others will talk about personal responsibility, and how most obese people got that way because of poor choices they made and they have to live with the consequences, and how people who eat junk food responsibly shouldn't be penalized for the sins of others. But I actually see this as something worthy of consideration. First off, if the price of fresh produce goes down, everybody benefits from that. If it means that more people eat healthy, then there will be less diet-related illnesses to treat and less of a crunch on health insurance, which benefits everybody. If the children in poorer households are eating healthier, they will have better self-esteem and more of a chance to succeed in their educational pursuits. The only downside is that a Whopper or a bag of chips will cost a little bit more. Many will argue that's too high a price to pay.

There have been other ideas bandied about to make healthy eating more affordable. Obviously, no program will totally eradicate obesity. People have to decide for themselves what they are going to eat. But I see this as both an issue of public health and equality of opportunity. There is an argument being made that low economic status is a hindrance to leading a healthy lifestyle and raising children to be healthy. Acknowledging that a healthy lifestyle isn't recognized as a constitutional right, isn't it still in the interest of the greater good to consider public solutions? It's a good ideological debate.