Dem strategist (albeit a paid one) rips Nanny State push

Dem strategist (albeit a paid one) rips Nanny State push

A classic Nanny State bill failed in committee Tuesday within hours after a leading Democratic strategist warned California lawmakers that they shouldn’t count on flattering headlines if it kept advancing.

Details on the bill’s demise from the LAT:

“A proposal to affix health warning labels to sugary drinks, including sodas and sports drinks, failed to win sufficient support in a key Assembly panel Tuesday.

“The measure would have required sugary drinks sold in California to be labeled with a warning that sugar contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. …

“The bill’s supporters, including the California Medical Assn. and an array of public health groups, argued that labels would help consumers make healthier choices. …

“The bill got seven ‘aye’ votes — all from Democrats — but short of the 10 votes it needed to pass.”

‘Wisely declined to pursue’

nanny-state-logoWhat follows are excerpts from an online op-ed earlier Tuesday by stategist/consigliere/spokesman Steve Maviglio. It’s a tart warning to his fellow Democrats about the bill, which readers should filter through the fact that Maviglio is on the payroll of the American Beverage Association (as he acknowledges):

“… as the sponsors of the bill admitted in POLITICO a few weeks ago, the legislation will have no impacts on health of any Californians. It’s part of a ‘movement’ by professional anti-soda crusaders to beat back the soda industry, plain and simple. ….

“Health advocates have made an excellent effort of educating the public in recent years about the ill effects of too much sugar., and its connection to soda. … But a warning label that does nothing but send a message? There’s no proof anywhere that it has an effect; as mentioned earlier, even its proponents, in a delicious display of candor, say that it doesn’t.

“Which is why this bill feeds straight into the message of Legislative critics when they say this legislation is another example of the ‘Nanny State’ bills that Legislative Democrats formerly  embraced but have recently wisely declined to pursue. …

“Assemmbly Democrats should think twice about moving this bill to the Governor’s desk, and instead return to the discipline they’ve exhibited in killing legislation that does nothing but grab headlines.”

Now I’m hardly saying Maviglio’s warning had any effect, much less a decisive effect. As the LAT noted, the bill is still alive for reconsideration. And I’m sure donations may have persuaded Dem lawmakers to ignore their Nanny State impulses. And of course … he’s on the payroll of the American Beverage Association.

Big Mother debate: Passion is on libertarian side

But even with all these caveats, it is still fun to see a prominent type in California’s liberal firmament make a point that libertarians and conservatives have made for years: The Nanny State mentality isn’t broadly popular.

And there’s another point that Maviglio didn’t make but probably agrees with: The people who back Nanny State policies are mostly mildly supportive. Those who oppose them include far more folks who genuinely hate these laws, seeing them as both infantilizing adults and as being contemptuous of basic liberty.

How many on the left feel this passionately about stuff like Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to limit the size of sodas in fast-food restaurants?


Related Articles

Attorney for plaintiffs in bullet-train lawsuit suggests way out

Michael J. Brady, the Redwood City attorney for Kings County and other parties suing the California High-Speed Rail Authority, offers

Who Regulates Air Resources Agency?

FEB. 7, 2011 Despite a recent legal ruling halting implementation of California’s climate change law, the California Air Resources Board,

Fighting words at the Capitol

Aug. 27, 2012 Katy Grimes: The tension in the Assemmbly is so thick today, you could cut the air with